








HGL6I3 

."P88 








Columbia flHnitursfitg 

STUDIES IN ENGLISH AND COMPARATIVE 
LITERATURE 

61 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 
1487—1653 


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
SALES AGENTS 

NEW YORK 

LEMCKE & BUECHNER 
30-32 West 27th Street 

LONDON 

HUMPHREY MILFORD 
Amen Corner, E.C. 




i cjnnjisr none are conrepnen njeiwnem 
Scions of matrpmonpi m manans four* 
me of contractpngfoiempnprpngeanD Ip 
turns in tijc fame.flntl) Declacacponofail 
fucbctmpeDpmentesasiot^e let matrp* 
inonp tone maoe^no alfo ccttepne otijer 
tiipnges lbt)tct)c curates be bounoenbp^ 
iatbe to Declare oftentpmes fotliep? patpf 

the. 'JmptrnteDattb* inOaunce of mapttet jsolpoo* 
wtt8flaab«w*«>of oettia. 




, j x ‘ , ic 







Vim0b 
'*$ k ' ■' -r?* : ’ .* 


TITLE PAGE OF HARRINGTON S BOOK 
(Cut shows marriage scene) 


































ENGLISH DOMESTIC 
RELATIONS 

1487—1653 


A STUDY OF MATRIMONY AND FAMILY LIFE 
IN THEORY AND PRACTICE AS REVEALED 
BY THE LITERATURE, LAW, AND 
HISTORY OF THE PERIOD 


BY v/ 

CHILTON LATHAM POWELL, Ph.D. 

INSTRUCTOR IN THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 



gotk 

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 
1917 

All rights reserved 





Copyright, 1917 

By Columbia University Press 


Printed from type, March, 1917 



This Monograph has been approved by the Department of 
English and Comparative Literature in Columbia University 
as a contribution to knowledge worthy of publication. 


A. H. Thorndike, 

Executive Officer 


PREFACE 


The present work was undertaken in the belief that con¬ 
siderable knowledge of any particular subject could be 
gained by examining not only the literature centering around 
it but also whatever other expression of fact or opinion might 
exist in connection with it during the period under con¬ 
sideration. The subject of my investigation here is that 
of domestic relations in England, including both the con¬ 
tract of marriage (its making and breaking) and the sub¬ 
sequent life of the family. The period involved extends 
from the first appearance of the subject in English writing 
up to its first great crisis, a height of clear thinking and 
vigorous expression on which Milton and Cromwell stand 
alone. Although it has been necessary to thus limit the 
work in regard to time and place, an effort has been main¬ 
tained to make the field of investigation within these limits 
as all-inclusive as possible. 

I cannot fairly claim to be entering terra incognita in 
this study. Legal writers have already covered the field 
as thoroughly as available material from legal sources has 
allowed them to go; historians have also done something, 
though not a great deal, in tracing the development of the 
different marriage ceremonies during the period; and stu¬ 
dents of literature have made a few blind thrusts here and 
there whenever they found their heroes, like Milton, step¬ 
ping aside from the fields of the imagination to discuss a 
“business of such concernment to the fife of man” No 
one, however, has used all possible sources of information — 


yin 


PREFACE 


history, law, literature, and actual practice — to concen¬ 
trate research from different angles upon all the interests 
involved; and since the information hitherto discovered, 
except in the legal field, is scant to the point of being neg¬ 
ligible, it is only by using all available sources and com¬ 
bining the results thus gained that the actual conditions 
of the period may be set forth and the contemporary 
literature on the subject properly understood. 

As is suggested above, the field of literature (using the 
term broadly to include all kinds of writing) has been almost 
entirely neglected in connection with the present subject. 
For this reason, we may expect to find it, as an expression 
of current thought and practice, the most profitable source 
of information, particularly such works as may be eliminated 
from the stricter limits of literature on the ground of being 
utilitarian rather than artistic. On the legal and eccle¬ 
siastical status of matrimony, the conditions and opinions 
of the day are to be found principally in tracts, controversial 
and otherwise the Thomason collection being especially 
valuable, in confessions and defenses of faith, and occa¬ 
sionally, as a side issue, in books on domestic life. It is 
only when a writer turns aside from controverted subjects 
and aims to present his conception of ideal family life that 
we meet with books of any length or anything like a series 
of works that we may class together as a type or genre. 
The demonstration of such a series, developing from the 
beginning of the English Reformation up to the days of 
the Commonwealth and running parallel to legal and eccle¬ 
siastical agitation in the same field, is perhaps the most 
important contribution of the present study to the history 
of literature; but from a wider point of view, its contribu¬ 
tions to the history of law and practice in church and state 
as well as its assemblage of legal and historical material 
not elsewhere so available, may be thought to be of equal 


PREFACE 


IX 


moment. Attention should also be called to the first two 
appendices, which on account of their growth under investi¬ 
gation had to be removed from the main body of the book. 
The first presents the only existing account of the English 
writings on the divorce suit of Henry VIII, correcting many 
bibliographical errors previously made and discussing sev¬ 
eral important books hitherto practically unknown (e.g. 
those of John Fisher); and the second attempts to overthrow 
altogether the present conception of Milton’s early married 
life and the supposed cause of his tracts on divorce. 

Although this book was undertaken upon my own in¬ 
itiative and has been worked out according to my own 
ideas, I am indebted to others for incidental assistance. 
To Professor Charles William Wallace, of the University 
of Nebraska, I wish to express my gratitude for his ever 
ready kindness in helping me with bibliographical work 
at the British Museum. To Professors Ashley H. Thorn¬ 
dike, Jefferson B. Fletcher, George Philip Krapp, and 
Munroe Smith, of Columbia University, and to Rev. Dr. 
J. G. Dangar, Prebendary of Exeter Cathedral, I am also 
duly grateful for valuable suggestions on certain details. 
Professor Smith’s final approval of my investigation may 
be taken as a guarantee of its accuracy in points of law. 
Finally, I take this opportunity of expressing my appre¬ 
ciation of the privileges kindly extended to me by the 
following institutions, where my studies were carried on — 
the British Museum, the Bodleian Library, Oxford, the 
libraries of Christ College and St. John’s College, Cam¬ 
bridge, the University of Edinburgh Library, the Peabody 
Institute, Baltimore, and the Bar Library of Baltimore. 

Baltimore, Md. 

June, 1916. 


C. L. P. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER PAGE 

I. INTRODUCTION 

I. The Laws of Marriage. 1 

II. Practice and Customs of Marriage. 13 

II. CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 

I. Historical Situation. 28 

II. The Puritan Platform in regard to Marriage 37 

III. The Position and Practice of the Indepen¬ 

dents . 44 

IV. Continental, Scottish, and American Churches 49 

V. The English Church of the Commonwealth.. 54 

III. THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 

I. Legal Situation. 61 

II. The Puritan - Anglican Controversy on 

Divorce. 70 

III. The Final Deadlock. 84 

IV. THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 

I. The Type and its Origin. 101 

II. Puritan and Romish Attitudes towards 

Marriage. 119 

III. Later Domestic Books. 129 

IV. The Domestic Book as Literature. 139 

V. CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMAN 

I. Ecclesiastical . 147 

II. Domestic and Courtly. 152 

III. Commendation and Satire. 160 

IV. Historical and General View. 169 

VI. WIDER RANGES OF DOMESTIC LITERATURE 

I. More General Conduct Books. 179 

II. Domestic Drama. 192 



















Xll 


CONTENTS 


APPENDICES 

A. English Writing on the Divorce of Henry 

VIII and Catherine. 207 

B. Date and Occasion of Milton’s First Divorce 

Tract. 225 

C. Directions for Matrimony from Harrington’s 

Book. 232 

D. Contents of Typical Domestic Books. 234 

BIBLIOGRAPHIES 

I. Early Books of Domestic Relations etc- 243 

II. Books on Henry VIII’s Divorce. 252 

HI. Later Books of Reference. 254 

INDEX. 257 









ENGLISH 

DOMESTIC RELATIONS 

1487-1653 

CHAPTER I 

INTRODUCTION 

I. The Laws of Marriage 

The legal aspects of marriage, in regard to both the orig¬ 
inal contract and the resultant relations of husband and 
wife, have been pretty thoroughly treated in books of law , 1 
but it is necessary to have the principal facts involved 

1 A brief but sufficient statement of the development of the legal 
history of marriage, including the principal points of Roman canon 
law, may be found in an article by Munroe Smith in the Universal 
Cyclopedia under the heading of Marriage. The best statement of the 
canon law of marriage is in Esmein, Le Manage en droit canonique. 
For the Roman canon law of marriage and divorce, see Coudert, Mar¬ 
riage and Divorce Laws in Europe; for the relations of Roman canon 
law to English law, see Maitland, Roman Canon Law in the Church of 
England; for English ecclesiastical law, as modified by the Reforma¬ 
tion and subsequent practice of ecclesiastical courts, see Phillimore, 
Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England (Pt. Ill, ch. VII). An excel¬ 
lent book for the lay reader on the development of marriage and related 
subjects, from a broader and less legal point of view than the above 
works, is Howard, History of Matrimonial Institutions , which contains 
copious notes and the best existing bibliographies on the general sub¬ 
ject. The only early legal work unknown to Howard which I have 
found, is Ridley, A Viewe of Civile and Ecclesiasticall Law (published 
in 1607); but in addition to this, practically all the books discussed in 
my second, third, and fourth chapters below are here examined for the 
first time in connection with the subject of marriage. Other useful 
works are mentioned in the notes to the present chapter. 

1 


2 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


immediately before us. Although in the early stages of 
the development of the Aryan races, marriage was regarded 
as a religious affair, and although one of the earliest forms 
of Roman marriage was of a religious nature, the only ele¬ 
ment required by the later Roman law to establish the 
validity of a marriage was the consent of the contracting 
parties. The Christian church, from its first organization, 
made a consistent and increasing effort to gain control of 
matrimonial affairs; but although by the beginning of the 
thirteenth century it had almost complete power over both 
marriage and divorce, it still recognized a privately con¬ 
tracted marriage, made by mutual vows only, as valid, 
and was unable to stop altogether the practice of private 
divorce. The constitution of marriage as a sacrament by 
the Council of Florence in 1439 — a conception that had 
been slowly maturing for centuries — was the obvious 
device to explain and perpetuate the doctrine of eccle¬ 
siastical jurisdiction; but not until the Council of Trent 
in 1563 did the church declare officially that marriage not 
contracted in the presence of a priest and witnesses should 
be void. This decree was, of course, too late to affect 
England, which had thrown off Papal supremacy in 1534; 
thus the English Reformation had to deal with the entire 
question of marriage and divorce in the vaguely defined 
status it enjoyed in the early sixteenth century. Previous 
to the Reformation, however, the case of England was 
identical with that of other Roman Catholic countries, 
its affairs ecclesiastical being regulated entirely by canon 
law, which in regard to matrimonial causes had drawn its 
whole theory of consent from Roman civil law. 1 

1 The church, however, was seldom permitted to decide questions 
of property, inheritance, etc., involved in cases of marriage or divorce; 
it acted only in regard to the validity of the contract and the right of 
dissolving it. 


INTRODUCTION 


3 


The period which we are investigating in this book lies 
altogether within the days of church supremacy, and the 
conception of marriage with which we must start is that of 
the mediaeval Church of Rome. To understand the vari¬ 
ous elements here involved, it is necessary to look more 
closely into the regulations and ceremonies of marriage as 
it was then practiced. The fifteenth century is the time 
of our investigation for the moment, although very little 
change took place between the twelfth and the seventeenth. 

The first step in the contract of marriage was called 
spousals, which, roughly speaking, correspond to the be¬ 
trothal of preceding times and to the engagement of today. 1 
Spousals differed widely in kind but were similar in effect. 
There were two distinct types, de futuro and de praesenti. 
Spousals de futuro were merely promises made by or for 
two persons to marry some time in the future, deo volente , 
and might be broken for any just and reasonable cause by 
either party. Such spousals might be made by parents 
for young children, just as vows are made for them at bap¬ 
tism, but these promises might be repudiated for any reason 
whatever by either of the young people upon coming to 
marriageable age. Spousals de praesenti were a far more 
serious matter. They were vows made similarly to the 
de futuro but in the present tense, and were in effect, though 
not in name, marriage itself. 2 They could be broken only 
by death and by entrance into holy orders. In case of 
cohabitation after either form of spousals, and without any 
marriage ceremony, the offenders laid themselves open to 

1 For a full discussion of this subject from a legal point of view, 
see Swinburne, A Treatise of Spousals; for a treatment from a more 
general viewpoint, see Jeaffreson, Brides and Bridals. 

2 Thus the Duchess in The Duchess of Malfi says: 

“I have heard lawyers say, a contract in a chamber 
Per verba praesenti is absolute marriage.” 


4 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


punishment by the church, but their union was recognize 
as a valid marriage by both church and state. It was thu 
possible to contract an irregular but perfectly legal marriag 
without the sanction or the intervention of either civi 
or ecclesiastical authority. Spousals of either type migh 
be pure or conditional, sworn or unsworn, public or pri 
vate, but these details were of no actual importance, al 
though publicity was strongly urged in all cases. Pri vat 
spousals could be accomplished by any of the lovers’ formula 
of today for becoming engaged, and in public spousals then 
was also a certain amount of latitude allowed. In th 
most orthodox form of the latter, a priest was present, an< 
a regular ceremony consisting of vows similar to those o 
a present-day wedding was gone through with. 1 From thi 
great diversity of practice here possible and the secrecy 
with which private spousals might be made, it is eviden 
that, as the church was the only authority in dispute! 
concerning spousals and marriages and as this authority 
was usually administered by local courts or priests, a grea 
latitude , of interpretation -and- practice was possible, espe 
daily as the ecclesiastics were extremely open to briber] 

1 Readers of literature of this period (up to 1650) are likely to fal 
into two errors in regard to spousals, — first, that of not recognizinj 
a private spousal and its importance when it occurs, and second, tha 
of mistaking a public spousal for a marriage. Of public spousals w< 
have good examples in Twelfth Night , V, 1, and in The Taming of th 
Shrew, III, 2 (see below, p. 19). After spousals, the engaged couph 
might call each other “husband” and “wife,” although they were noi 
really so. Thus Olivia calls Cesario (mistaking him for Sebastian) hus 
band, and likewise Petruchio calls Katherine wife and Baptista father 
In Shakespeare, the exchange of rings is a fairly good guide to a mod¬ 
ern audience that a spousal is taking place, e.g. Merchant of Venice 
III, 2. An excellent example of a private spousal de futuro occur* 
in Hey wood’s English Traveller, II, 1. 


INTRODUCTION 


5 


of one kind or another. Despite this fact, so much impor¬ 
tance was attached to these contracts that a secret unsworn 
spousal could invalidate a later regular and church-blessed 
marriage and render the children of it illegitimate. 1 

The legal age for marriage, which might follow spousals 
immediately or after an interval of any length, was fourteen 
for males and twelve for females. 2 But the church performed 

1 The point here was that persons who had made a contract were 
married by that act “in the eyes of God,” and were controlled by the 
text, “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” 
The proper application of this text in various instances was obviously 
difficult. Milton, remarking upon it and its effects, says that it is “as 
obscure as any clause fetched out of Genesis, and hath increased a yet 
undecided controversy of clandestine marriages.” Prose Works, II, 17. 
We find several instances of precontract in old plays. Beatrice in The 
Changeling, in order to escape from her contract with Alonzo, contrives 
to have him murdered. In The Roaring Girl, Mrs. Gallipot, in order to 
gull money out of her husband for her paramour, Laxton, tells him 
that she was once contracted to Laxton. He thereupon bribes Laxton 
not to bring suit, and furthermore says to his wife, 

“If thou shouldst wrestle with him at the law, 

Th’art sure to fall, no odd flight, no prevention.” 

In The Miseries of Enforced Marriage, a private contract occurs between 
Scarborow and Clare, after which he says to her father, 

“Your daughter’s made my wife, and I your son.” 

When his uncle later tries to contract him to another, he objects on 
the ground that it would make him an adulterer, “my babes being 
bastards, and a whore my wife.” When this marriage is finally forced 
upon him, Clare, hearing of it, says, 

“Whoe’er shall marry me 
I’m but his whore, live in adultery.” 

2 It was presumed that twelve and fourteen were the ages of puberty 
for girls and boys respectively. The validity of a marriage rested on 
whether or not both were capable of sexual union rather than on their 
actual ages. For examples of child marriages, divorces, etc., see Fur- 
nivall’s reprint of the Chester records under the title of Child-Marriages, 


6 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


marriages upon infants in arms, their parents consenting, 
and recognized the age of seven as that when parental con¬ 
sent was no longer absolutely necessary. Such marriages, 
however, were voidable by either party upon coming of 
age (fourteen and twelve respectively) unless cohabitation 
had taken place. As indicated above, a valid but clan¬ 
destine marriage might be made merely by sexual inter¬ 
course preceded by promises to marry; but all such unions 
were stigmatized by public and ecclesiastical opinion. In 
order to increase the publicity of marriage and thus diminish 
the number of those clandestinely made, the practice of 
publishing banns grew up and became pretty general by 
the middle of the fourteenth century. Furthermore, only 
certain times of the year were proper for marriage, 1 although 
in case this rule was not observed, the contract was none 
the less valid. 

The final recognized step in the consummation of matri¬ 
mony was the performance of the marriage right of carnalis 
copula or bodily union. Legislation concerning the effect 

Divorces, etc., and also the references in Howard, Hist. Mat. Inst., I, 
357-8. Children have been married, divorced, and widowed before 
reaching puberty. 

Heroines of tender years are not uncommon in Elizabethan drama. 
Juliet, it will be remembered, was only thirteen. Manthea in English - 
men for my Money at the age of twelve cries, 

“Good God, how abject is this single fife. 

I’ll not abide it.” 

1 The prohibited times varied somewhat in different localities but 
always occurred at the three chief sacred seasons of the year. They 
embraced Advent and shortly after, a part of Lent, and from Rogation 
Sunday to Trinity. For further details, see Jeaffreson, I, 285 ff. Since 
the Reformation, no season has been prohibited, but the former ones 
continued to be observed for some time. In the fifteenth century, a 
marriage had to take place before twelve o’clock, just as it must be 
before three in England today. However, all these obstructions could 
be set aside by the purchase of a special license. 


INTRODUCTION 


7 


of the performance or omission of this act was scant, but 
the opinions of the church fathers, which in the absence of 
canons on the subject had the force of law, were both num¬ 
erous and conflicting. From our discussion of spousals, it 
will be seen how great was the importance laid upon this 
act, as it might in itself convert either form of spousals into 
actual marriage or might legalize the marriage of children 
under age. It is impossible here to go into the effect of 
its total omission; it will be enough for our purpose to say 
that in such a case an applicant for divorce might find a 
court which would thereby make a point in his favor, and 
again he might not . 1 At any rate, a marriage was regarded 
as much more firmly cemented if copulation had taken place. 

From the foregoing discussion, it will readily be seen that 
the question of divorce, or rather of annulment, which turned 
on the original validity and subsequent nature of a marriage, 
was one of the most vexing problems that the church ever 
brought upon itself. We are not here concerned with civil 
legislation, for although it may have differed in a few details 
where rights of property and so forth were involved, it left 
the actual granting of divorces entirely in the hands of the 
church . 2 Such cases were usually decided in local ecclesi- 

1 Henry VIII, in seeking a divorce from his wife Catherine, tried to 
establish the fact that her previous marriage with Arthur had been con¬ 
summated by bodily knowledge; but although the judges seem to have 
been convinced that such was the case, it is far from clear whether this 
decision had any real effect in the suit. 

2 Milton, with his usual acumen, says on this point: “The Popes of 
Rome, perceiving the great revenue and high authority it would give 
them even over Princes, to have the judging and deciding of such a main 
consequence in the life of man as was divorce; wrought so upon the 
superstition of those ages as to divest them of that right.” Prose Works , 
II, 53. Almost the same language had been previously used in the act 
by which Henry VIII tried to reform the abuses of the church in divorce 
matters. See p. 62, below. 


8 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


astical courts, but might be carried to Rome on appeal. 
In the Roman Catholic Church, there never has been any 
such thing as divorce in the modern sense of the word. Here 
the term was used as a general one to include two types of 
separation, neither of which corresponds to the divorce of 
today. The first of these was divortium a mensa et thoro, 
which was simply a separation and did not allow either 
party to remarry . 1 The causes for this were various, but 
those usually plead were adultery, heresy or apostasy, and 
cruelty. The second type was divortium a vinculo matri¬ 
monii, which took the form of a declaration that the mar¬ 
riage had been illegally contracted and was therefore null 
and void ab initio, that any children born during it were 
bastards, and that either party might marry again without 
further ado . 2 The state of abuse into which matrimony 
had fallen is well illustrated by the fact that there were more 
grounds for the annulment of marriage than for separation 
a mensa et thoro. 

This brings us to another large and vaguely settled ques¬ 
tion, as to what conditions prohibited a marriage, or if it 
were already made, what causes, previously existing, were 
sufficient to nullify it. Here we must distinguish, for there 

1 Nevertheless, second marriages after such a separation were prac¬ 
ticed to a certain extent, either by legal manipulation or by pleading 
St. Paul’s words, “It is better to marry than to burn,” and obtaining 
an indulgence. For a discussion of this practice in England, see below, 
p. 87, n 1. The separation a mensa et thoro is, of course, the only type of 
divorce granted by the Catholic Church today, except the complete 
annulment of marriage. 

2 Up to 1337, children were not bastardized if their parents had 
married in ignorance of an existing impediment. After that date, both 
civil and church law held them to be illegitimate if a divorce was ob¬ 
tained; otherwise they were legitimate, although legal grounds for 
divorce actually existed. For further discussion of these points, see 
Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, II, 373 ff. 


INTRODUCTION 


9 


were a number of impediments which obstructed marriage 
but which if unobserved were not weighty enough to have 
any further effect except that of subjecting the offenders 
to the discipline of the church. These were set forth in 
verse form as follows: 

“Ecclesiae vetitum, tempus, sponsalia, votum 
Impediunt fieri, permittunt facta teneri” 1 

The impediments which forbade marriage and annulled it 
completely if already contracted were, “ poetically com- 
prised”: 

“Error, conditio, votum, cognitio, crimen, 

Cultus disparitas, vis, or do, ligamen, honestas, 

Si sis afiinis, si forte coire nequibis, — 

Haec socianda vetant connubia, facta retractant ” 2 

1 This verse is taken from Renton and Phillimore, Comparative Law 
of Marriage and Divorce, p. 24. Its source is not given, and I have not 
seen it elsewhere. The impediments are: veto by the church, improper 
time, precontract (i.e. de futuro), and informal vows. 

2 This verse is given by Hemmingius, Libellus de Coniugio, Repudio, 
& Divortio, p. 137, by the author of A Curtaine Lecture, p. 141, who 
attributes it to Cardinal Cajetanus, and by Godolphin, Repertorium 
Canonicum, p. 493, who attributes it to Thomas Aquinas. Renton 
and Phillimore, Comparative Law of Marriage and Divorce, p. 19, cite 
a similar verse, except that the third line is increased to two, in which 
aetas (minority) and si clandestinas et impos (if clandestine and uncon¬ 
summated) are added. The source of the verse is not given. Coudert, 
Marriage and Divorce Laws in Europe, p. 7, gives still another and 
longer verse, not mentioning the source, which adds the further 
impediments of amentia (insanity) and raptio (abduction). 

Erasmus, Matrimonii Christiani Institutio, f. e6 ff., discusses the im¬ 
pediments at great length, but does not distinguish between the abso¬ 
lute and the prohibitive. He mentions eighteen altogether: inter dictum 
ecclesiae sive generate, tempus anni, conditio (i.e. honesta, turpis, indif- 
ferens, impossibilis, et hinc mille casuum varietatis), error, votum castitatus , 
ordo, cognitio, adoptio et arrogatio (adoptantur filii familias, arrogant 
qui sui juris sunt), cognatio spiritualis, ajfinitas, publica honestas, con- 
suetudo sive constitutio, crimen, dispar cultus (hoc est diversa religio), 


10 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


As interpreted by the church, these impediments were re¬ 
spectively: mistaken identity, certain conditions of one 
party unknown to the other, solemn religious vows, relation¬ 
ship within the forbidden degrees , 1 criminality , 2 difference 
of religious faith, fear (caused by threats etc.), membership 
in holy orders, prior marriage or contract de praesenti (with 
any one still living), lack of public decency, affinity , 3 and 
impotency . 4 It may be seen from the number and diver¬ 
sity of these causes that a marriage might be annulled for 

metus, praecedens obligation inhabilitas corporum ad usum matrimonii , 
ubi dissidium est animorum et inamabilis cantio est. Commenting upon 
these impediments and their effects, he says, u Quorum alia sunt eius 
generis , ut non dirimant contraetum , sed obsistant contrahendo, & con - 
temptorem impedimenti crimini faciant obnoxium, non depellant ab uxore: 
alia dirimunt ad tempus: alia & contrahendo obsistunt, & contraetum 
distrahunt. Quaedam dirimunt matrimonium ratum, non dirimunt 
consummatum. . . . Rursus alia dirimunt coniunctum domesticum aut 
societatem thori, alia restituunt marem & foeminam in integrum. . . . 
Iam circa unumquodque impedimentorum mille quaestionum examina 
pugnaeque innumerabiles opinionum humanarum” Op. cit., f. el. 

Wm. Harrington, the first to set forth the impediments in English, 
in 1528, agrees as well as can be expected with those given here. See 
below, p. 72, n. 2. 

1 Cognatio or relationship was of three kinds: (1) blood relation¬ 
ship within four degrees (before 1215 within seven degrees); (2) spirit¬ 
ual relationship (abolished in 1563), which existed between all persons 
taking part in the baptism or confirmation of a child; (3) relationship 
by adoption, forbidding marriage between adopter (or his wife) with 
the adopted and between the adopted and the children of the adopter. 

2 By criminality was meant one of two things: (1) the murder of a 
person who obstructed a contemplated marriage, and (2) adultery with 
promise of marriage at the death of obstructing person. 

3 Affinity existed between each party and the relatives of the other 
both in the case of a married couple and in that of a couple who had had 
illicit relations. 

4 For further explanation of the impediments, with qualifications, 
exceptions, etc., see Godolphin, p. 492 ff., Renton and Phillimore, 
p. 19 ff., and Coudert, p. 7 ff. 


INTRODUCTION 


11 


almost any reason that the church wished to sanction in 
any particular case, a condition of affairs that was widely 
taken advantage of. “No exercise of its power yielded 
more money, or caused more scandal. So tangled was the 
casuistry respecting marriage, at the beginning of the six¬ 
teenth century, that it might be said that, for a sufficient 
consideration, a canonical flaw might be found in almost 
any marriage .” 1 

The impediments which were surest of recognition and 
which were oftenest plead, were precontract, that is spousals 
de praesenti , and consanguinity or affinity between the con¬ 
tracting parties. Voluminous and widespread was the 
writing on the latter case, especially after Henry VIIFs 
divorce, opinion differing chiefly as to how many degrees 
of relationship should be forbidden, and in Henry’s suit 
as to whether the Pope had exceeded his authority in grant¬ 
ing the original dispensation by which the King was enabled 
to marry Catherine . 2 

The Reformation in Germany, in regard to matrimonial 
affairs, was like the voice of John the Baptist crying in the 
wilderness, but unfortunately its message was hampered to no 
small extent by the fact that the leaders of thought there 
still tried to reconcile the authority of the Scriptures with 
the reason of every-day demands . 3 Consequently the chief 
actual result was to set ideas to work which ultimately 
brought some kind of order out of chaos, but which for a 
century after Luther’s time could accomplish very little in 

1 Thwing, The Family, p. 83. 

2 For an account of the English writing on the subject of the royal 
divorce, see below, Appendix A. 

3 Almost all the leaders of the German Reformation contributed 
something to the discussion of marriage and divorce, some of them 
writing books on this subject alone. For further account, see Milton 
Prose Works, II, 231 ff., Woolsey, Divorce and Divorce Legislation, 
p. 126 ff. 


12 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


themselves. The most important step taken was to deny 
the sacramental character of marriage, which Luther did 
in his De Captivitate Babylonica in 1520. 1 He also wished 
to do away with the distinction between spousals de futuro 
and de praesenti and to make all such contracts either simple 
betrothals, like the present-day engagement, or else mar¬ 
riages per se; but this proposition was not accepted. With 
the greatest evil in marriage and divorce legislation, — the 
multiplicity of impediments and the consequent ease with 
which a divorce a vinculo matrimonii might be obtained — 
the Reformers did nothing at all, although they seem to 
have realized the need of some action in regard to these 
conditions. In the field of divorce itself, perhaps the great¬ 
est immediate results were attained. Separation, or divorce 
a mensa et thoro, was abolished altogether, and in place of 
it was established a divorce resembling the modern type, 
by which the children remained legitimate but the innocent 
party might remarry without further suit in either spiritual 
or civil court. 2 For such divorce the ordinances of Witten¬ 
berg in 1534 and 1553 give two recognized causes, adultery 
and desertion. 3 Finally, all questions and suits in regard 

1 In this he was followed by Calvin in his Institutiones, 1536, and in 
the discipline of the Geneva church, which became the model for the 
church discipline of Holland and Scotland and influenced the Thirty- 
nine Articles of the Church of England. 

2 This was the origin of divorce as it is practiced today in Protes¬ 
tant countries. The only difference between a modern divorce and 
one under the German Reformation, is that nowadays either party 
may remarry. 

3 Divorce for adultery was based on the words of Christ {Matt. 
V, 32, and XIX, 9); that for desertion was based on those of St. Paul 
(I Cor. VII, 5). But the latter was taken in a more general sense than 
the literal meaning of the word, and included other causes, such as the 
refusal of the marriage right. The Wittenberg ordinances expressed 
the most conservative opinion. That of Zurich in 1525 stated that 
adultery, desertion, etc., were not only causes for divorce but represented 


INTRODUCTION 


13 


to marriage and divorce were placed partly in the hands of 
the parish clergy and partly in those of secular judges. 
Owing to the confusion of opinion arising from this arrange¬ 
ment, the result was hardly an improvement over the old 
system of jurisdiction except in principle; and this fact, 
together with the failure of the Reformers to attack the 
evils of impediments and nullification, in the end produced 
conditions which were actually much the same as those 
preceding, except for the possibility of remarriage after a 
divorce for adultery or desertion. • 

What has been said of the Roman Catholic Church in 
general prior to Luther’s time, applies also to England before 
Henry VIII precipitated the whole Reformation question 
by his divorce from Catherine. Some one has made a re¬ 
mark to the effect that Henry first saw the light of the 
Reformation in the shining eyes of Anne Boleyn; and 
although this is no doubt true, the conditions he brought 
into the forum of public opinion were real faults in civil and 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and however insincere may have 
been his own concern in the general question, his personal 
attitude and the publicity of his case instigated thought 
and argument, which by provoking a wide controversy, 
finally resulted in great benefit to the realm. 


II. Practice and Customs of Marriage 

As a matter of actual practice, aside from ecclesiastical 
or civil concern, we may say that marriages were of three 
kinds, — those of children, those clandestinely performed 
by persons either under or over the age of puberty, and 

also the standard of abuse which it was designed to remedy, “and to 
the judge it is left to decide what other causes shall be put by their 
side.” Woolsey, p. 132. For further discussion, see Woolsey, ibid., 
and Howard, II, 60 ff. 


14 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


those openly and formally made with the blessing of the 
church and the celebration of friends. As we are interested 
in the practices and customs herein involved, as well as 
the legal aspects of the contract, we must examine briefly 
each of these three methods of marriage. 

Infants, that is “those Younglings and Babes which as 
yet cannot speak” could not effect any kind of contract, 
but their parents could “make marriages” for them regard¬ 
less of their age. These so-called marriages, however, had 
only the force of promises de futuro and were of no legal 
standing. The youngest couple reported in the Chester 
records is that of John Somerford, age three, and Jane 
Brerton, age two. The testimony, descriptive of the wed¬ 
ding, given later at John’s suit for divorce (when fifteen 
years old), was as follows: 

“Johannes Somerforth . . . dicit, that he was present bie, 
when John Somerforth and Jane Brerton were maried together in 
the parish church at Brerton about xij yeres ago. ... He saies 
that he carried the said John in his armes, beinge at the tyme of 
the said Mariage about iij yeres of age, and spake somme of the 
wordes of Matrimonye, that the said John, bie reason of his younge 
age, cold not speake hym selfe, holdinge him in his armes all the 
while the wordes of Matrimonie were in speakinge/ And one James 
Holford caried the said Jane in his armes, beinge at the said 
tyme about ij° yeres of age, and spake all, or the most parte of, the 
wordes of matrimony for her; and so held her still in his armes.” 1 

The reasons for such child marriages were several. First, 
the parents were fulfilling the responsibility of settling 
their children in marriage, or at least taking steps thereto, 
which was one of the recognized duties of parenthood. 
Secondly, a peaceful treaty or alliance was often formed by 
families or countries hostile to one another by means of 
such a union. Thirdly, in case of the death of a father, 

1 Furnivall, Child-Marriages , etc., p. 25. 


INTRODUCTION 


15 


by the laws of feudalism, the crown or its grantee had the 
right of the persons and estates of the children and might 
sell them to its own advantage; this the parents obviated 
by marrying their children as soon as possible. Fourthly, 
if the child was seven years old, the parents might benefit 
by the marriage settlements. It cannot be determined 
how common these child marriages were, but references to 
them are sufficiently numerous to make it clear that the 
practice was by no means out of the ordinary, especially 
among noblemen. Becon, writing about 1562 of the causes 
of the low esteem in which marriage was held, says: “First 
as touching men of nobilitie, wee see dayly by experyence 
that they for the moste parte marrye theyr chyldren at 
theyr pleasure whan they are verye yonge, euen to suche 
as wyll geue them most mony for them, as men use to sel 
theyr horses, oxen, sheepe, or any other cattel. Who that 
wyl geue most mony, shalbe sonest sped.” 1 Although 
it was a deplorable state of affairs that children should have 
been married for financial considerations only, the duty of 
parents to provide for their children in marriage is so clearly 
expressed in the domestic conduct books of the time that 
it is only fair to suppose that the impulse to settle them as 
soon as possible proceeded in most cases from worthy 
motives. 

1 Becon, Worckes, Pt. I, f. ccccclxiiii. It may be objected that the 
children could break these contracts upon coming of age; but it must 
be remembered that “of age” in those days meant twelve and fourteen 
instead of eighteen and twenty-one, and it is hardly to be thought that 
such children would be able to act for their own best interests even if 
they realized what their rights or their interests were. If the marriage 
was made at the parents’ instigation after the children were of age, 
whether the latter knew what they were doing or not, it was accom¬ 
plished once and for all. Milton calls this practice a “savage inhuman¬ 
ity,” and says that “the law which gives not all freedom of divorce to 
any creature endued with reason so assassinated, is next to cruelty.” 
Prose Works , I, 373. 


16 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


Clandestine marriages were those performed by children 
over seven years of age, either publicly or secretly, without 
parental consent, or those performed secretly by youths of 
fourteen and girls of twelve. In either case, the church 
condemned the practice but recognized the marriage as 
valid; but, as stated above, in the case of children under the 
age of puberty, the marriage had to be ratified later by 
both. An interesting wedding is cited in the Chester 
records as having been clandestinely performed by a priest 
between a boy of eleven and a girl, “a bigge damsell & 
mariageable,” as follows: 

“Jacobus Hartley . . . Dicit, that he hard say that the said 
James and Anne articulate, were Maried in the parish Church of 
Colne, upon the xij th even in the Christmas shalbe v yeres, comme 
the Twelfth even next, about x of the Clocke in the night, — the 
said James at that tyme beinge about xj or vnder xij yeres of age,— 
without the consent of any of his frendes, bie one Sir Roger Blakey, 
then Curate of Colne ... he saies, that the same night, this depo¬ 
nent was in the house of Christopher Hartley of Wwller, vncle to the 
said James libellate, and sawe when the said James [Ballard] was 
brought into the said house about Midnight bie ij° fellowes, which 
(as this Deponent supposethe) had bene at the said Mariage. And 
in the morowe after, the same James [Ballard] declarid vnto his 
Vnckle, that the said Anne had intised hym with two Apples, to go 
with her to Colne, and to marry her. . . . And further he saieth, 
that the said Curate was ponished by the Archbushop of York his 
grace, for marieng at inconvenient tymes and vnlawfull persons.” 1 

Between persons of age, clandestine marriages were made 
simply by exchanging such words as “I take thee for my 
wife” and “I take thee for my husband.” Such a con¬ 
tract was in name a mere spousal de praesenti, but in effect 
it was a marriage, and if it was followed by cohabitation, 
it became automatically recognized as such. Swinburne, 


Furnivall, p. 45. 


INTRODUCTION 


17 


writing about 1600, says on this point, “Albeit there be 
no Witnesses of the Contract, yet the parties having verily 
(though secretly) Contracted Matrimony, they are very 
Man and Wife before God; neither can either of them 
with safe Conscience Marry elsewhere, so long as the other 
party liveth.” 1 The contracted parties were man and wife 
before the law as well as before God, although the lack of 
witnesses made the proof of the marriage difficult. The 
form of such spousals might be anything from a simple 
promise to the complete ceremonial for public spousals 
as far as could be managed under the circumstances. At 
least the bride and groom might exchange a handclasp and 
a kiss, both of which had from ancient times been associated 
with the marriage contract. Great significance was also 
attached to the gift of a ring, usually given by the man to 
the woman or by each to the other, and one was always 
provided, if it could possibly be afforded, even in the most 
secret marriages. 

As has already been said, both the child marriage and 
the union by means of spousals only were somewhat irreg¬ 
ular though not unusual. The former had to be ratified 
at the children’s coming of age, and the latter was always 
regarded with disfavor and was the cause of much legislative 
dispute. In the regular course of events leading to mar¬ 
riage, both spousals, either de futuro or de praesenti , and 
the solemnization by the church of the contract so made, 
were conducted openly and with a certain amount of set 
formality. A marriage might include both forms of spousals 
as well as the church celebration, but this would naturally 
occur seldom, as the latter embraced all the necessary vows 
and the ecclesiastical benediction in one service. On the 
other hand, no contract at all was required before the wed¬ 
ding ceremony, for the same reason. However, the contract 

1 Swinburne, Treatise of Spousals , p. 87. 


18 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


itself, whether made in secret, in a private gathering of 
friends, or in the church service, was the essential feature of 
matrimony, the ceremony of the church being quite second¬ 
ary in importance. On this point the publisher of Swin¬ 
burne’s book says, “In all Marriages Solemnized after the 
most strict manner, the Contract of Parties is the principal 
Ingredient and most essential Part, all other Matters 
being only as it were Foreign and Extrinsical to its Nature.” 1 

In regard to the forms of spousals de futuro and de prae - 
senti, they were so nearly alike, in whatever sentences they 
were expressed, that we may say that if the words spoken 
gave the impression that the parties at that moment took 
one another in the contract of matrimony, the spousals 
were de praesenti; if the words implied a promise against 
the future, a de futuro spousal was established. 2 Indeed, 
the simple intention to marry, though accompanied by the 
wrong formula, was sufficient to effect the contract. Swin¬ 
burne says here, “Albeit the words of the Contract, neither 
of their own natural signification, neither yet by common 
use and acceptation conclude Matrimony; Yet whereas 
the Parties do thereby intend to Contract Matrimony, 
they are inseparable man and wife, not only before God, 
but also before Man; in case their meaning may lawfully 
appear.” 3 Furthermore, for the protection of innocent 
girls against evil men, “when the words of the Contract 
are indifferent or equally flexible to the signification of 
Spousals de futuro, or Matrimony; In this Case the Law 

1 Swinburne, f. A3. 

2 Howard, I, 340 ff, brings considerable evidence to bear that the 
distinction between de futuro and de praesenti spousals was not under¬ 
stood or recognized by the humble people, but was in fact mere eccle¬ 
siastical hair-splitting. This was also Luther's view. Swinburne 
acknowledges the difficulty but upholds the distinction at length. 
Ibid., secs. Ill, X, XII. 

3 Swinburne, p. 87. 


INTRODUCTION 


19 


presumeth Matrimony to be contracted, except in certain 
cases.” 1 Spousals might be qualified to some extent by 
the stipulation of certain conditions. This subject is treated 
at length by Swinburne, 2 but is not of sufficient impor¬ 
tance to be considered here. 

The public spousal was performed either at the bride’s 
house or at the church porch, but in either case the priest 
was recognized as the official witness. Here the vows 
were exchanged for either a future or a present union, but 
the couple was not pronounced to be man and wife, nor were 
they supposed to cohabit until the contract was solemnized 
by the church ceremony for marriage. Next to the vows, 
the exchange of gifts, principally from the man to the woman, 
was the most important feature of spousals. The ring of 
betrothal was worn on the right hand. A public spousal 
in full form is described by the priest in Twelfth Night 
between Olivia and Sebastian: 

“A contract of eternal bond of love, 

Confirm’d by mutual joinder of your hands, 

Attested by the holy close of lips, 

Strengthen’d by interchangement of your rings; 

And all this ceremony and compact 
Sealed in my function, by my testimony.” 3 

1 Swinburne, p. 88. Throughout his treatise, Swinburne uses the 
terms matrimony and spousals de praesenti as synonyms. 

2 Ibid., sec. XII. 

3 Shakespeare, op. cit., V, 1. In All's Well, II, 3, a contract is per¬ 
formed by the King between Helena and Bertram. The ceremony is 
appointed to be held that night, and the “solemn feast” later. A spou¬ 
sal similar to the Twelfth Night one takes place in Reade’s The Cloister 
and the Hearth, although it is not described in detail. It is interesting 
to note that although this union was not solemnized by the church, the 
birth of a child was no stigma to the bride, except for the fact that her 
“ bethrothal paper ” was missing. 


20 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


Here we find all the principal details, the handfasting, the 
kiss, the exchange of rings, and the benediction of the priest. 
But, so far as we know, there were no other witnesses. An 
espousal or a marriage was supposed to be witnessed by 
two persons, but it seems likely that the presence of a priest 
served just as well. 

The time between the performance of spousals and the 
celebration of marriage varied. Since the publishing of 
banns was usually done on the three successive Sundays 
after the spousals, a space of about three weeks was the 
proper minimum; on the other hand, it might extend to 
years, as is often the case with engagements of today. The 
banns publicly asked in church as well as posted in public 
places of the town, were devised to make sure that no im¬ 
pediments existed which might later invalidate the mar¬ 
riage. In case any of such nature were discovered, the 
contract was annulled ipso facto without any formality at 
all, and was of no force in obstructing a later marriage. 
In Cromwell’s time, the betrothed couple were given the 
choice of being “asked” on three Sundays in church or 
“cried” by the town bellman on three successive market days, 
and it seems that the latter method was the more popular. 

The modern marriage ceremony originated in times too 
remote for us to investigate. The general form and phrase¬ 
ology of it go back to the twelfth century and became per¬ 
petuated in England for all succeeding time, with but slight 
changes, by the first English Prayer Book, 1 published by 

1 Many things in our modern ceremony are significant of old prac¬ 
tices. One may notice that the vows made at the chancel steps are 
future in tense, corresponding to the ancient spousals de futuro. The 
bride’s father accompanies her through these, as he did formerly, and 
then drops out altogether, since originally this was where he presented 
his daughter’s dower to the groom and gave the bride herself into the 
hands of the priest. The vows now made at the altar rail are present 
in tense, corresponding to the spousals de praesenti. The earliest Prot- 


INTRODUCTION 


21 


order of Edward VI in 1549. The service of the Church 
of England today is practically the same as this. 1 The 
orthodox ceremony of the period we are studying used a 
form which was simply a repetition of spousals de futuro 
and spousals de praesenti , followed by the minister’s pro¬ 
nouncing the couple to be “man and wife” and the prayers 
of the congregation for the success of the union. The pub¬ 
lisher of Swinburne’s book explains this clearly in his preface. 
“In our Publick Office of Marriage,” he says, “Spousals 
and Matrimony 2 are united, and performed in one con¬ 
tinued Act; When the Minister demands, Wilt thou have 
this Woman to thy wedded Wife, &c. And the Man answers, 
I will, and so the Woman vice versa, there’s a Specimen of 
Spousals de futuro. When the Man repeats the words, J. N. 
take thee N. to my wedded Wife, &c., and so the Woman vice 
versa, there’s the form of Spousals de praesenti, which in 
Substance are perfect Matrimony. . . . When the Min¬ 
ister adds his Benediction, and pronounces them to be Man 
and Wife, then ’tis a perfect Marriage to all constructions 
and purposes in Law.” 3 

estant marriage ceremony seems to have been drawn up by Bugenhagen 
in 1523. (See his De Conjunctio episcopum.) Since the Reformation, 
the minister has performed the legal marriage in pronouncing the 
couple “man and wife.” The purely religious part of the ceremony, 
which followed, has been much curtailed in Protestant churches, but 
among Catholics the mass is still used to complete the marriage. In the 
American branch of the Church of England, the introductory part of 
the service has been shortened by the omission of much of the expla¬ 
nation of the uses and abuses of matrimony, which to our taste is 
offensive and ill-timed. 

1 The practices of the other churches and the origin of their cere¬ 
monies are discussed in the next chapter. 

2 The writer follows Swinburne’s usage of these terms, applying them 
to spousals de futuro and de praesenti respectively. 

3 Swinburne, f. A3 b*. It must be remembered that this book was 
written after the Reformation and treats of the Church of England only. 

* The letter b indicates the back side or verso of the folio mentioned. 


22 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


The marriage itself, through the part just described, was 
performed in the church porch; 1 the company then proceeded 
within the church, the bridal couple entering the chancel 
itself; and the blessing of God was spoken over them, as 
they kneeled beneath the “ care-cloth,’’ which was held by 
four ecclesiastics. 2 Jeaffreson picturesquely describes a 
wedding ceremony in full form as follows: 3 

“To the church-porch . . . the espoused woman of pre-Ref or- 
mation times, with loosened locks falling to the waist, came on her 
wedding day, preceded by minstrels and vase-bearer, conducted by 
bride-knights or pages, attended by maidens, surrounded by her 
kindred, and followed at a distance by her father. There she met 
her espoused groom and became his wife, in the presence of God, 
the priest and the people. If she had previously gone through no 
ceremony of public betrothal, the earlier part of the proceedings 
at the porch corrected the omission. In answer to the priest’s 
inquiry, she declared her wish to obey, serve, love, honor, and keep, 
alike in sickness and in health, the man who had just before in the 
hearing of the congregation expressed his desire to be her loving, 
worshipful, and considerate husband. The marriage followed im¬ 
mediately on the utterance of her wish for it. 

“She stood at the groom’s left hand. . . . Firmly pressing with 
his grasp the unreluctant hand . . . the groom said, ‘ I, * *, take 
the * *, to my wedded wyf, to have and to holde, fro this day 
forwarde, for bettere for wers, for richere for porere; in sykeness 
and in hele; tyll dethe us departe: if holy chyrche it wol ordeyne; 

1 Thus the Wife of Bath, “Housbondes at chirche-dore she hadde 
fyve.” Marriage was performed in the body of the church for the 
first time in the reign of Edward VI, but this practice did not become 
universal until about a century later. 

2 If either bride or groom had been previously married, the care- 
cloth was not extended over them. 

3 Jeaffreson places his description before the Reformation probably 
because several variations of usage came in shortly after it. His ac¬ 
count, however, does very well for the orthodox practice in post- 
Reformation days. 


INTRODUCTION 


23 


and therto I plight the my trouthe.’ The hands of the spouses 
having been momentarily separated, the fairer and gentler of the 
two caught the other’s large hand with a nervous grasp, and said, 
‘I, * *, take thee, * *, to my wedded husbonde, to have and to 
holde, fro this day forwarde, for better for wors; for richer for 
porere; in syknesse and in hele; to be bonere and buxom, in bedde 
and at borde, tyll dethe us departhe, if holy chyrche it woll ordeyne; 
and therto I plight the my trouth.’ 

Next came the use of the ring. . . . Together with the ring 
the groom put gold and silver on the officiating priest’s book; and 
after the symbol had been duly consecrated before the assembly, 
... he took it up with the thumb and two next fingers of his 
right hand, and placed it with peculiar ceremoniousness on the 
particular finger of the bride which it was destined to adorn. 1 
‘With this rynge I the wed, and this gold and silver I the give, and 
with my body I the worship, and with all my worldely chatels I 
the endow,’ he uttered following the priest’s voice. . . . The 
ceremony of placing the ring on the bride’s ring-finger was followed 
by the priestly utterance of a benediction 2 . . . which was followed 
by the recital of verses of the 68th Psalm, and the delivery of other 
blessings, that terminated the proceedings at the church-door.” 3 

The real ceremony of the wedding was now complete, but 
prayers, additional benediction, and mass or sermon were 
yet to follow within the church. 4 These, however, were not 

1 The third finger of the left hand. In case the maiden already wore 
a bethrothal ring, it became the marriage ring also and was shifted 
from the right hand to the left. 

2 At this point, in post-Reformation times, the minister declared 
the couple to be “man and wife.” 

3 Jeaffreson, I, 88 ff. Further details of the trappings of marriage 
— costumes, music, the ring, the feast, etc. — are set forth in this 
interesting book. These are particularly valuable in throwing light on 
the stage-business of contemporary drama, as in the case of the wed¬ 
ding of Petruchio and Katherine and the former’s abuse of the con¬ 
ventional ceremonials. 

4 After the Reformation, the mass was given up as part of the 
marriage ceremony when the church dropped its use altogether. The 


24 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


essential to a marriage. Before leaving the church, the 
bridal party partook of wine, bread, and sweetmeats, 
blessed by the priest, who also gave the groom a benedic- 
tional kiss, which the latter conveyed to the bride. 

The ceremony over, the whole company adjourned to the 
house of the groom, where a feast was provided. Indeed, 
the groom’s friends usually started feasting before they 
attended the church ceremony, a custom that unfortunately 
has not yet altogether died out. This practice and the 
evils resulting from it, are commented upon by Bullinger 
in his The Christen state of Matrimonye, as follows: 

“But the deuell hath crept in her also / & though he can not 
make the ordinaunce of goying to the church to be vtterly omitted 
& despised / yet is he thus mightie / & ca bring it to pas / that 
the ordinuance is nothing regarded but blemished with all maner 
of lightnesse: In so much that early in the morning the wedding 
people begynne to exceade in superflous eating & drinkyng / wherof 
they spytte vntill the halfe sermon be done. And whan they come 
to the preaching / they are halfe dronke / some alltogether / ther- 
fore regard they nether the preaching ner prayer / but stonde ther 
onely because of the custome. Such folkes also do come vnto the 
church with all maner of pompe and pryde / & gorgiousnesse of 
rayment and Jewels. They come with a greate noyse of basens and 
drommes / wher with they trouble the whole church / & hindre 
them in matters pertayninge to god.” 1 

The propriety of celebrating marriages with feasting and 

sermon was not a part of the ceremony in England until it was intro¬ 
duced by the Reformers. After about 1650, it was postponed until the 
first Sunday after the wedding. 

1 Bullinger, op. cit., f. L. Bullinger was not an Englishman, but the 
fact that Coverdale, who translated his work, retained this passage, is 
evidence that the description represents English practices accurately 
enough. That Coverdale was not above taking liberties with his 
text is shown by the variations in the different editions of the book 
in question. 


INTRODUCTION 


25 


merrymaking seems to have been under debate, but if 
conducted with moderation, both were approved by clergy 
and laity alike, as proper and fitting, even upon Scriptural 
authority. William Perkins, a Puritan of the less radical 
type, writes in 1590: 

“Heere question is moued, whether mariage is to be solemnized 
with mirth and feasting. Answ. I. It is lawfull and warrantable to 
vse feasting and mirth at mariages, because these be things indiffer¬ 
ent, and wee haue examples thereof in the Scriptures. . . . Christ 
himselfe did approue the resort of people to the mariage at Cana in 
Galilee, both by his presence, and by that honorable gift of sixe 
water-pots of best wine, Ioh. 2. 2. 7. 8. II. It is not only lawfull, 
but conuenient and fit to be done, if there be abilitie; according 
to the commendable custome of the place & countrie wherein men 
do dwell; so as in the vse thereof, these cautions bee obserued. 
First, that in mirth and merry-making, there be care had that 
nothing be done which is dishonest, prophane, or of ill report. 
Philip. 4. 8. Whatsoeuer things are honest — pure — of good re¬ 
port, thinke on these things. Secondly, that ioy in them be mixed 
and moderated with feare of God, without which Laughter and 
reioycing is meere madnesse, Eccles. 2. 2. Thirdly, That it be per¬ 
formed in a moderate and sober vse of the creatures, without riot 
& excesse. Thus we reade at the great feast of Ahashuerosh, it 
was appointed by the King himself, that they should drink orderly, 
& none might compel another to drinke more then he thought con¬ 
uenient. Ester I. 8.” 1 

William Gouge, a later Puritan, goes still further, declar¬ 
ing that such a feast partakes of the nature of a civil 
ceremony and is “very requisite.” 

“Though vpon the forenamed consecrating of mariage it bee in 
regard to the substance thereof fully consummate, yet for the greater 
solemnity of so honourable a thing, it is very requisite that further 
there be added a ciuill celebration of it: vnder which I comprise all 

1 Perkins, Christian Oeconomie, p. 96. 


26 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


those lawfull customes that are vsed for the setting forth of the out¬ 
ward solemnitie thereof, as meeting of friends, accompanying the 
Bridgroome and Bride both to and from the Church, putting on 
best apparell, feasting, with other tokens of reioycing: for which 
we haue expresse warrant out of Gods word.” 1 

Among the Independents, who opposed all ecclesiastical 
performance of marriage, the rejoicing and feasting of friends 
was regarded almost as an essential part of the wedding, 
in order to make it public and to take the place of the church 
ceremony. Under the caption “How must they be duelie 
ioined in manage,” Robert Brown, one of the leaders of 
the sect, lays down these principles: 

“Their bethrothing & espousing must be further made known 
vnto witnesses. Their friendes must be glad and reioyce together, 
in some ioyefull and seemelie manner.” 2 

The elaborateness of these festal celebrations depended, 
of course, upon the position and wealth of the bridal couple. 
In full form, they lasted two or three days, and included 
banqueting, dancing, song, games (particularly of a kissing 
nature), outdoor sports, sometimes masques or interludes, 
and finally a levee held by the bride and groom to their 
nearest friends in the bed chamber, the receiving couple 
being enthroned in the bed. 3 It may readily be imagined 
that at a time of such general abandon, abuses and excesses 
might easily take place. This was indeed the case, and 
the evil practices are often commented on by the writers on 
marriage. Bullinger’s description, in his Cristen state , of 
such an afternoon and evening is too good to miss. 

1 Gouge, Domestical Duties, p. 120. 

2 Brown, Life and manners of true Christians, cap. 172. 

3 In The Changeling , the inmates of a mad-house are hired to amuse 
a wedding company on the third day of the feast. In The Wonder of 
Women, a pageant takes place in the bridal chamber. 


INTRODUCTION 


27 


“After the bancket and feast / there begynneth a vayne / madd/ 
and vnmanerly fashio. For the bryde must be brought in to an 
open dauncyng place. Then there is such a renninge /leapinge/ 
and flynging amonge them / then there is such a lyftinge vp and 
discoueringe of damesels clothes and of other wemens apparell/ 
that a man might thinke / all these dauncers had cast all shame 
behinde the / and were become starke madde and out of theyr 
wyttes / and that they were sworne to the deuels daunce. Then 
must the poore bryd kepe foote with all dauncers / & refuse none/ 
how scabbed / foule / dronke / rude and shamels so euer he be. 
Then must she oft tymes heare and se much wickednesse / & many 
an vncomely word. And that noyse and robling endureth euen 
tyll supper. 

“As for supper / loke how much shamels & droken the euenyng 
is more then the murnyng / so much the more vyce / excesse/ 
and mysnourtoure is vsed at the supper. After supper must they 
begynne to pype and daunce agayne of the new. And though the 
yonge parsones / beynge weery of the bablyng noyse and incon- 
uenience / come ones towarde theyr rest / yet can they haue no 
quietnesse. For a man shall fynd unmanerly & restlesse people/ 
that will first go to theyr chabre dore / and there syng vycious 
and naughtie balates that the deuell maye haue his tryuphe now 
to the vttermost.” 1 

With the coining of Puritan and Independent ideas after 
the Reformation, both ceremony and custom underwent 
certain changes. Those described above, however, may be 
taken as representative of the so-called Church of England 
after it broke away from the Pope. For the severing of 
the Anglican Church from the Church of Rome, so far as 
marriage and divorce were concerned, had no effect upon 
general conditions whatsoever. 

1 Bullinger, f. L b. A similar description of wedding revelry occurs 
in the old morality play The Disobedient Child (Dodsley, Old Plays, ed. 
Hazlitt, II, 300). Another, but with fewer details, is given by Chaucer, 
Merchant’s Tale, 11. 465 ff. 


CHAPTER II 

CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 


I. Historical Situation 

The first years of the Reformation in England were pic¬ 
turesquely and aptly described by Thomas Fuller in a 
sermon in 1643. “King Henry the eight,” he says, “brake 
the Popes necke, but bruised not the least finger of Popery; 
rejecting his Supremacy, but retaining his superstition in 
the six Articles. The Reformation under Edward the sixth, 
was like the Reformer, little better then a child. ... As 
Nurses to woe their Children to part from knives do suffer 
them to play with Rattles; so the State then permitted 
the People (infants in Piety) to please themselves with some 
frivilous points of Popery, on condition they would forsake 
the dangerous opinions thereof. As for Queene Elizabeth, 
her Character is given in that plaine, but true expression, 
that shee swept the Church of England and left all the 
dust behind the door.” 1 The Puritan doctrines referred 
to here, which began to make themselves felt in Elizabeth’s 
reign, were advanced in their early conception in both Eng¬ 
land and Germany long before this name was attached to 
the sect in 1564. Indeed, the beginning of this agitation 
may be traced back without break to Wiclif; but although 
the present movement was the result of principles similar 
to those of the Lollards, as a historical development it is 
so clearly the immediate outcome of the Reformation that 
the earlier influences may be quite disregarded here. 

1 Fuller, A Sermon of Reformation, p. 7. The passage given is quoted 
by Fuller from some work which he does not name. He repudiates the 
characterization of Elizabeth’s reign, but history rather supports it. 

28 


CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 


29 


As early as 1550, the effect of the German Reformation 
and the still more sweeping reform ideas, many of which were 
not as yet in actual operation anywhere, began to have 
some influence in England. Many of the future leaders of 
English thought, such as Hooper, Coverdale, Rogers, and 
Ridley, “the first race of Puritans,” were"at this time return¬ 
ing from their exile on the continent, and by sermons and 
teaching began to spread the doctrine of the purification of 
the English Church from Popish practices and Popish form 
of government. Although in the succeeding years under the 
oppression of Elizabeth, this purification was still aimed at 
certain ceremonial details, — the minister’s robe, the ring 
of marriage, etc. — and some historians have represented 
the Puritan movement as originating from the desire to 
get rid of these, the fact is that prelatical episcopacy in its 
fundamental conception was attacked, by some at least, 
from the very first. Hooper, in his Declaration of the Ten 
Commandments, published in 1550, spends three chapters 
in expounding the nature of ecclesiastical law and the 
necessity of avoiding the decrees and interpretations of 
Popish bishops. 1 And Bucer, in his Draft of a more 'primi¬ 
tive Church system , 2 in 1557, goes so far as to advocate 
provincial synods as well as a council of bishops and 
presbyters. 

The Puritan form of church government in its complete 
conception was first drawn up in England by a committee 
of sixty divines, of which Cartwright and Travers were 

1 Hooper, Early Writings , p. 270 ff. 

2 Contained in his De Regno Christi. Such a form of church gov¬ 
ernment was instituted by Calvin in Geneva in 1541, having been 
submitted to the civil authorities in 1536. Church government by 
synods of clergy and laity had been established by Zwingli at Zurich 
as early as 1528. Bucer’s ideas were, of course, taken from continental 
practice, which influenced Hooper and the other English Reformers 
also. 


30 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


members, in 1576. Here we find provisions for three types 
of governing bodies, — classes, comitial assemblies, and 
provincial synods — following the form of Calvin’s church 
government at Geneva. These, under different names, 
continued to be advocated as the disciplinary powers of the 
Reformed church. These principles of ecclesiastical govern¬ 
ment had been previously set forth in 1574 in a Latin 
book by Travers, Ecclesiasticae Disciplinae, et Anglicanae 
Ecclesiae . . . explicatio, which was translated by Cart¬ 
wright in the same year under the title of A full and 
plaine declaration of Ecclesiasticall discipline, etc. A second 
Latin book by Travers, in 1584, since known as the Book 
of Discipline, was also translated in that year by Cart¬ 
wright, but its publication was suppressed. 1 Robert Brown, 
later the founder of the Brownist sect, issued a book in 1582, 
The life and manners of true Christians, which for the first 
time set forth in English the Puritan interpretation of Scrip¬ 
tural instruction for life and church government. But 
with the establishment of the Court of High Commissions 
in 1571 and the increasing power of Archbishop Whit gift, 
the advance of the Puritan cause was brought almost to an 

1 This is the book which was found among Cartwright's papers after 
his death and published in 1664 under the title of A Directory of Church- 
government. Neal ( History of Puritans, I, 358) confounds these two 
translations from Travers. Heylyn {History of Presbyterians, p. 291) 
speaks of a Form by Cartwright as being popular in 1582. This was 
the translation of the first book. The confusion of the two works, 
which existed from Neal's time until 1872, is set right by the editor of 
the reprint of the 1664 edition of Cartwright’s Directory. Both books, 
however, contain the same principles. The Elizabethan names for the 
Directory were The Book of Discipline, The Form of Discipline, etc. 
The editor of the reprint says that this was “no doubt the same book 
as that referred to in the proceedings of Parliament in 1584, under the 
title of A Book of the Form of Common Prayer, Administration of the 
Sacraments, etc.” I think he is mistaken here, as a book of this name 
and date is extant which bears no resemblance to Cartwright’s. 


CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 


31 


end, although its adherents held their ground and spread 
their gospel by personal teaching and suffering. It was 
at this time that the Puritans were martyrs as non-conform¬ 
ists to ritualistic details rather than as advocates of a reform 
of church government, as it was easier to convict a man of 
ceremonial omissions than of doctrinal opinions. For this 
reason, it is natural that most of the public expression of 
the time in sermons, petitions, tracts, etc., is concerned 
with superficialities rather than fundamentals, the famous 
Marprelate tracts being a case in point; but the treatises 
mentioned above show clearly that the real trouble was 
more than surface deep. 

In the reign of James I, there was no change in the condi¬ 
tion of affairs except for the slackening of persecution. In 
the Humble Petition to King James and at the Hampton 
Court Conference, only minor points were discussed, and 
the only things obtained by the Puritans were the King’s 
scorn and enmity. The limitation of the power of the eccle¬ 
siastical courts, which Neal says were an “insufferable 
grievance” on account of the “bottomless deeps of canon 
law,” and the widening of the jurisdiction of the civil mag¬ 
istrate on much the same lines as were afterwards established 
in Charles’ time, were advocated by William Bradshaw in 
his English Puritanisme, published in 1605. The same views 
were for the first time expressed in Parliament in 1607, in 
a speech which is important both in showing the coming 
attitude of the period and in throwing light upon previous 
history. The following is extracted from it: 

“And whereas by the laws of God and the land, ecclesiastical 
persons should use only the spiritual sword, by exhortation, admoni¬ 
tion, and excommunication, which are the keys of the church, to 
exclude impenitent sinners, and leave the temporal sword to the 
civil magistrate, which was always so used in England, till the second 
year of the reign of king Henry IV. at which time the Popish prelates 


32 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


got the temporal sword into their hands; which statute was since by 
several acts of Parliament made void; yet by virtue of that tem¬ 
poral authority once for a short space by them used, some eccle¬ 
siastical persons do use both swords, and with those two swords the 
oath ex officio, which began first in England by the statute of the 
second of king Henry IV. being contrary to the laws of England, 
and, as I verily think, contrary to the laws of God.” 1 

But nothing came either of Bradshaw’s book or of this 
speech. Another attempt was made in the same direction 
by a petition in 1610, but the King was still obdurate. 

The Puritan movement was once more changed from 
an aggressive to a defensive cause under the high hand of 
Archbishop Laud in the reign of Charles I. So bitter and so 
sweeping was this prelate in his attack against the followers 
of the antipapal movement that the various sects of non¬ 
conformists which had split off from time to time from the 
established church almost lost their individuality in the 
defense of their common doctrines, especially as there was 
no occasion to quarrel over the details of Protestantism 
until Popery, now in the ascendent, was cast from the realm. 
In this period we find but few publications on the Puritan 
side, as Laud suppressed them as thoroughly as he could. 
A few, however, appeared anonymously, but their supposed 
authors were severely dealt with, Prynne, Burton, and 
Bastwick being imprisoned, tortured, pilloried, and fined. 
Under Elizabeth and Whitgift, the High Commission Court 
had been oppressive enough; but Laud, by obtaining from 
Charles a decree removing ecclesiastical courts from state 
control, became himself the absolute master of every church 
and every minister in the country. This, of course, could 
not have been the case had he not had the support of all 
the bishops, — with the exception of a few who had become 
non-conformists — for they, realizing that their positions 

1 Neal, History of the Puritans , II, 68 ff. 


CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 33 

were to be maintained only by the continuance of the exist¬ 
ing form of church government, upheld the Archbishop 
and opposed the growing attitude of independence in the 
House of Commons. In 1640, Laud’s power reached its 
zenith, as expressed in the canons of that year. Canon 6, 
“that all archbishops, bishops, priests, and deacons take 
oath upholding the present doctrine and discipline of the 
church,” was aimed directly at all those opposed to ortho¬ 
doxy, with the intention of driving every non-conformist 
from his church or subjecting him to such punishment as 
Laud’s courts saw fit. 

But such autocracy could not be maintained indefinitely. 
Already ministers and congregations were fleeing the country 
to Holland, Geneva, and America in order to escape perse¬ 
cution and to worship as they pleased. In 1640, the House 
of Commons asserted itself, repudiated the canons just 
passed, and resolved “that the clergy of England . . . have 
no power to make any constitutions, canons, or acts, what¬ 
soever, in matters of doctrine, discipline or otherwise, to 
bind the laity of the land, without consent of Parliament.” 1 
Laud was sentenced to the Tower in 1641, and Parliament 
set about to strip the church and the bishops of the power 
obtained under his administration. By this time, the 
Puritans and their fellow non-conformists represented not 
only the general opinion but also the real power of the entire 
kingdom; hereafter their labors were to be directed merely 
towards forcing their desired reforms from the House of 
Lords and the King. 

The bishops in the House of Lords stubbornly blocked 
every effort of the Commons for reform; but the Commons, 
supported by the populace of London and the greater part 
of the laity of the upper house, were becoming too powerful 
to be resisted. In 1641, the Star Chamber and the Court 

1 Neal, II, 319. 


34 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


of High Commissions were abolished; and in 1642, a bill 
was railroaded through both houses taking all temporal 
jurisdiction from the bishops. Thus the first obstacle to 
complete church reform was overcome. The King, who by 
this time was pretty well intimidated by Parliament, was 
approached in the same year with a summary in nineteen 
propositions of the reforms desired, the most important of 
which for us was “that your Majesty will be pleased to 
consent, that such a Reformation be made of the Church- 
Government and Liturgy as both Houses of Parliament shall 
Advise; wherein they intend to have Consultations with 
Divines.” 1 These propositions were not granted in any 
satisfactory way, and the deadlock between the King and 
the country, which embraced other matters than eccle¬ 
siastical, finally resulted in civil war. 

It is not possible here to go sufficiently into the history 
of this period to show the various efforts and the failures 
thereof on the part of Parliament to obtain a real reform 
of ecclesiastical affairs. It will be enough for our purpose 
to set forth the propositions for church government sub¬ 
mitted to the King at Uxbridge in 1645. These, though 
not accepted by him, are important in that they express 
the general principles of all the non-conforming parties, of 
which the English Puritans and the Scotch Presbyterians 
were the leaders, and also because they became in the next 
year the basis of the church doctrine and government under 
the Commonwealth. The new doctrine was set forth in a 
Directory for Public Worship , which was to supersede the 
Book of Common Prayer of Edward VI. It was drawn up 
by the official assembly appointed in 1643. 2 It contained, 
beside an introduction explaining its origin, the proper 

1 Rushworth, Historical Collections , Pt. 3, I, 723. 

2 The Directory was not made law until January 3, 1645. It may 
be found in Scobell, Acts and Ordinances of Parliament , I, 76 ff. 


CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 


35 


forms and usages connected with the functions of the church 
under the following headings: (1) Assembling the Congre¬ 
gation, (2) Public Reading of the Holy Scriptures, (3) 
Public Prayer before the Sermon, (4) Preaching the Word, 
(5) Prayer after the Sermon, (6) The Sacrament of Baptism, 
(7) The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, (8) The Sanctifi¬ 
cation of the Lord’s Day, (9) The Solemnization of Matri¬ 
mony, (10) Visitation of the Sick, (11) Burial of the Dead, 
(12) Public Solemn Fasting, (13) Observance of Days of 
Public Thanksgiving, (14) Singing of Psalms, and (15) an 
Appendix on the Days and Places of Public Worship. The 
government of the church was to be in the hands of congre¬ 
gational, classical, and synodical assemblies, in practically 
the same manner as that of Calvin’s church at Geneva, 
which had been advocated by Cartwright in England in 
the previous century. 1 

This form of church government became established 
nationally, by way of trial, under the Commonwealth in 
1646. The order of bishop was abolished, London was 
divided into twelve classical elderships, each containing 
twelve parishes, and persons were appointed by Parliament 
to settle the counties of England and Wales into provinces, 
as had already been done in Scotland by the Presbyterian 
Church. The eldership of each parish was obliged to 
meet every week, the classical assemblies once a month, 
provincial assemblies twice a year, and national assemblies 
as often as summoned by Parliament. The exact limita¬ 
tions of the jurisdiction of the church under this regime 

1 See his Directory and Discipline. Some similar form of church 
government was established as early as 1576 by Cartwright in the 
islands of Guernsey and Jersey, which had obtained royal permission 
to manage their own ecclesiastical affairs. But I have been unable to 
find any further information on the subject, except that this arrange¬ 
ment came to an end in the latter part of James Ps reign. 


36 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


cannot be determined. The sole disciplinary function 
seems to have been to deprive individuals of the Holy Com¬ 
munion in cases of sufficient offense. The ordinances “that 
cognizance and examination of any capital Offence, shall 
be by the Magistrate thereunto appointed,” and that “the 
Presbytery . . . shall not have cognizance of anything 
wherein any matter of Payment, Contract, or Demand is 
concerned, or of any matter of Conveyance, Title, Inter¬ 
est, or Property,” 1 which had been established in 1645, 
give us the general status of the case but leave us in the 
dark as to the particular interests of our investigation, 
namely marriage and divorce. The abolishing of the tem¬ 
poral power of the bishops in 1642, and the utter overthrow 
of their office in 1646, together with the final establish¬ 
ment of the new form of government in 1648, when the 
power of the assemblies was limited to settling points of faith 
and to excommunication for disorders, 2 would seem to make 
it clear that questions of marriage and divorce were, at 
least officially, taken entirely out of the jurisdiction of the 
church. On the other hand, no law was passed touching 
upon either subject, and no new method of judicature has 
been discovered as operating at the time. 

This situation was brought to an end by Cromwell's 
marriage act in 1653, in which it was provided that marriage 
should be performed by the local justices of the peace, and 
that all controversies or exceptions concerning contracts 
and marriages should also be referred to them or to such 
other persons as Parliament might appoint. 

1 Rush worth, Pt. 4, I, 212. 

2 Scobell, I, 165 ff. The whole form of church government, as then 
established, may be found here. 


CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 


37 


II. The Puritan Platform in regard to Marriage 

The above brief outline of the general Puritan move¬ 
ment will be sufficient to enable us to place the various 
reforms in regard to marriage in their proper historical 
setting. In looking more closely into the legislation and 
practice centering about this subject, it is necessary to 
consider not only the history of the Puritans, but also that 
of the other non-conformist bodies, in England, Scotland, 
the Continent, and America. Historians seem to have 
neglected this very important period in the development 
of the present-day conception of marriage, and have con¬ 
tented themselves with saying that civil marriage origi¬ 
nated in Holland and spread from there to England and 
America. 

The mistake here arises from a failure to distinguish 
between a legal marriage, which might be merely spousals 
de praesenti, and the “solemnization of matrimony” by 
the church, which was no more than an ecclesiastical bless¬ 
ing upon an already established union. The church, from 
the beginning of the Christian era on, had attempted to 
put the emphasis upon the solemnization, although it always 
recognized a privately contracted marriage as valid. 
Luther’s teachings, on the other hand, while retaining the 
church service as a beneficial custom, 1 threw the emphasis 
upon the previous contract, where in the light of actual 
law it belonged. It was doubtless the result of Luther’s 
teachings, passed on by Calvin, that two of the Netherland 
provinces, Holland and West Friesland, established civil 
marriage in 1580 upon gaining independence from Spain. 2 

1 Luther drafted a model ceremony for use where desired, which was 
followed with variations in the chief church ordinances. 

2 “There the law was ‘that those of any religion, after lawful and 
open publication, coming before the magistrates in the town-house, 


38 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


But this ceremony did not replace that of the church, as 
has been usually thought; it was merely a legal recogni¬ 
tion and sanction of the marriage contract, which up to 
this time had been performed in private, with or without 
witnesses, as spousals de praesenti. That the ecclesiastical 
solemnization continued to be practised in Holland, as an 
additional ceremony, is shown by the presence of the usual 
church service in the old Dutch liturgies 1 and is testified 
to by the Brownists , Confessions of Faith. 2 Furthermore, 
among the forms and ceremonies established by the National 
Synod of Dort in 1618-19 for all the reformed churches 
of the Netherlands, The Celebration of Marriage before the 
Church is printed for general use. 3 It is thus clear that in 
Holland the so-called civil marriage was no great innovation 
at all, but was merely the old private marriage, by means 
of spousals de praesenti, conducted according to legal form. 

That this explanation of the case, which is important 
both for itself and for its later bearing upon England and 
America, is the correct one, is further shown by the church 
service itself, in which the man and the woman are regarded 
and referred to as already married but “desire here openly 
to have your marriage-bond confirmed in the name of God 

or stadt-house, were to be by them orderly married, one to another. ’ ” 
Bacon, Genesis of New England Churches, p. 340. See also Bradford, 
History of Plymouth Plantation, I, 217. 

1 See Bibles, liturgies, etc., published at Delft, 1582, and Leyden, 
1589, under title, Biblia, dat is De gantsche Heylighe Schrift, etc., and 
also the comments on the English Reformed church in Holland, 
pp. 43-44 below. 

2 This book is contained in An Apologie or Defense of .. . Brovvn- 
ists, 1604. Baillie, in his Dissvasive from the Errours of the time, p. 42, 
quotes this passage from it: “The Dutch Church at Amsterdam cele¬ 
brates mariage in the Church, as if it were a part of the Ecclesiastick 
Administration, while it is in the nature of it meerly civill.” 

3 See A Catechisme of the Christian Religion, etc., trans. from the 
Dutch, p. 81. 


CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 


39 


before his church.” 1 An interesting comment, which again 
supports my view, is made upon this ceremony in the ac¬ 
count of the Synod of Dort, published by order of the 
Synod of Walloon Churches, held in 1667: “Comme il se 
trouve que jusques a present on use par tout de deverses manieres 
touchant les Manages, & toutefois est convenable d’entretenir 
Uniformite en cest endroit, les Eglises continueront V Usage 
qu’elles on eu jusques a maintenant, conforme a la Parole de 
Dieu & aux predecentes Ordonnances Ecclesiastiques, jusques 
a ce que par le Magistrat Superieur (lequel on requerra promp- 
tement pour cest effect) eu soit establie, avec Vadvis des Min- 
istres, une Ordonnance generate, a laquelle ce Reglement 
Ecclesiastique se rapporte quand a ce point.” 2 In such form, 
civil and ecclesiastical, marriage continued to be celebrated 
in Holland throughout our period. 

In England, even in the established church, conditions 
were similar to those in Holland, except that the presence 
of civil authority was not required, and in public opinion, 
though not in either ecclesiastical or civil law, greater 
emphasis was laid upon the church ceremony. William 
Harrington, whose views were orthodox even to the point of 
including marriage among the sacraments, makes these 
points clear. Writing in 1528, he says: 

“It is to be knowen that man and woman dothe entre this holy 
ordre and sacramente of matrymony by expresse and free consente 

1 Catechisme of the Christian Religion, p. 83. In putting the vows 
to the bridal couple, the minister is directed to say “to the married 
persons”: 

“N. doe you acknowledge here before God, and his Holy Church, 
that you have taken, and doe take to your lawfull wife N. here pres¬ 
ent,” etc. 

Note the tenses. Furthermore, there is no pronouncing of the couple 
to be “man and wife,” as this would have occurred, if at all, at the civil 
ceremony. 

2 La Confession de Foy des Eglises Reformees du Pais-Bas , etc., p. 78. 


40 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC EELATIONS 


of bothe partyes / that is to say: when bothe the man and the 
woman dothe consente bothe in one tyme to be husbonde and wyfe/ 
and that consente doo shewe eyther to other by expresse wordes of 
the tyme presente, as by these wordes or other lyke / I take the to 
my wyfe / or I frome this tyme forwarde wyll haue the to my 
wyfe. . . . But and they vse wordes of the tyme to come . . . 
then it is noo matrymony. . . . 

“ Moreouer this consent which doth make matrymony ought to 
be expressed & shewed in open and in honest places afore & in the 
psence of honest and laufull wytnesses called specyally therfore, ii 
at ye leest / for & it be otherwyse yt is to say / yf ye man & woman 
or theyr proctours do make matrymony secretly by them selfe 
without any recorde or but with one wytnesse yt is called matry¬ 
mony cladestinat whiche for many causes is forboden by the lawe 
. . . notwithstondyng that matrymony is valeable and holdeth 
afore god. . . . 

“And when matrymony is thus laufully made / yet the man 
maye not possesse the woman as his wyfe / nor the woman the 
man as her husbonde . . . afore suche tyme as that matrymony 
be approued and solempnysed by oure mother holy chyrche / and 
yf they do in dede they synne deedly.” 1 

Thus in England, as well as elsewhere, marriage by means 
of spousals de praesenti was recognized by both church and 
state, but the church had managed to become accredited 
as the proper authority for the solemnization of it. Never¬ 
theless, as this authority was self-assumed and as the 
sacramental character of marriage was repudiated in the 
Thirty-nine Articles of 1552, it had only the validity of 
tradition. 

That the civil authority should take charge of affairs 
matrimonial, does not seem to have been advocated in the 
first meeting of Puritan divines, in 1576. As yet the Re¬ 
formers were too much occupied with planning the mere 

1 Harrington, Comendacions of matrymony , f. Aiii ff. For a fuller 
quotation from Harrington, see Appendix C, below. 


CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 41 

form of church government to give attention to the divi¬ 
sion of power between church and state, although they went 
as far as to determine that the classical assemblies should 
decide “doubts and difficulties touching the contract of 
marriage.” Cartwright’s Directory also omitted any men¬ 
tion of civil jurisdiction. His directions as to marriage 
itself are interesting as the first Puritan expression in Eng¬ 
land on the subject. 

“Let espousing goe before marriage. Let the words of espous¬ 
ing be of the present time, and without condition, and before 
sufficient witnesses on both sides. It is to be wished that the 
Minister or an Elder be present at the espousals, who having called 
upon God may admonish both parties of their duties. . . . 

“The Espousals being done in due order, let them not be dis¬ 
solved, though both parties should consent. Let the marriage be 
solemnized within two moneths after. Before the marriage let the 
promise be published three severall Sabbath daies; but first, let 
the parties espoused, with their parents or govenours desire the 
publishing thereof of the Minister and two Elders at the least, 
that they may be demanded of those things that are needfull, and 
let them require to see the instrument of the covenant of Mar¬ 
riage, or at least sufficient testimony of the Espousals.” 1 

It is important to notice here the emphasis laid upon 
spousals and the insistence that they be de praesenti and 
before witnesses. In this we see the influence of Luther’s 
teachings in England even before they became established 
by law in Holland. 

From the appointment of Whitgift as Archbishop of 
Canterbury in 1583 to the fall of Laud in 1641, the Puritans 
were persecuted to such an extent and the publication of 
so-called seditious pamphlets was so rigorously suppressed 
that it is difficult to find much expression of opinion on the 
subjects of church government and marriage. Neverthe- 

1 Cartwright, Directory, f. B3. 


42 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


less, on the latter topic I have found enough writing to be 
able to present a definite account of its theory and practice. 
William Perkins, in his Christian Oeconomie, 1590, gives 
the fullest discourse, of which the following are the most 
important passages: 

“Mariage is that, whereby the coniunction formerly begunne in 
the contract, is solemnely manifested, and brought to perfection. 
Mariage is consummate by three sorts of actions; one of the par¬ 
ents of the Bride and Bridegroome, the other of the Minister in 
publicke, the third of the persons coupled together. . . . 

“The second Action ... is the blessing and sanctification 
thereof, which is a solemne worke, whereby the Minister pronounc¬ 
ing the parties contracted to be man and wife before the whole 
congregation, commendeth them and their estate vnto God by 
solemn prayer. . . . 

“Now that this action is to be approued and vsed in the Church, 
appeares by these reasons. I. Mariage as it is a publicke action, 
so it is after a sort a spirituall and diuine ordinance, whereby it 
differeth from the contract: For the contract being meerely ciuill, 
as it standeth by consent of man, so by the same consent, it may bee 
broken and dissolued, but with mariage it is otherwise. II. Mar¬ 
riage is the Seminarie of the Church and Common-wealth. III. 
It was the practise of ye Primitive Church.” 1 

As in the case of Cartwright’s Directory, it should be 
noted that the church ceremony is not regarded here as 
the actual marriage — that had already taken place in the 
spousals de praesenti — yet it is strongly recommended 
that the church should bless and solemnize the union. This 
attitude is more definitely expressed in a statement made 

1 Perkins, op. cit., pp. 83, 94, 94, respectively. The Biblical author¬ 
ity cited by Perkins for making marriage an ecclesiastical affair is: 
(1) God said to Adam and Eve, “Increase and multiply” (Gen. II, 22); 
and (2) St. Paul said, “Let all things be done decently and in order ” 
(I Cor. XIV, 40). 


CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 43 

by John Paget 1 in a collection of letters entitled An Arrow 
against the Separation of the Brownists, published at Amster¬ 
dam in 1618. “For marriages/' says this writer, “we do 
not hold it as a thing of necessity that they should be cele¬ 
brated by Ministers in the church; we judge them lawful 
marriages that are made by the Magistrates, without Min¬ 
isters; but yet we hold it lawful, more convenient and 
comfortable, that they be accomplished in the church by 
Ministers, both for showing the duties of the persons mar¬ 
ried, and for obtaining a special blessing by the prayers of 
the congregation." 2 The writers who attack more directly 
the civil marriage of the Brownists take the same attitude. 
Thomas Edwards in his Antapologia: or, A Full Answer to the 
Apologeticall Narration , 3 4 asks, “Whether also, one of these 
Apologists, was not so farre gone in the principles of the new 
Church-way, as that he would not be married by Ministers, 
but deferred marriage till he came into Holland, where 
presently after his comming he was married, (not in the way 
of the Reformed churches there,) but by the Magistrates 
according to the way of the Brownists, as it is laid down in 
Robinsons Apologie.” 4 Another Puritan writer, Ephriam 
Paget, in his Heresiography , a book on the various non¬ 
conformist sects, describes the Brownists as being “as 
malevolent to the Dutch and French churches as to us," 
and among the reasons given for this antipathy is the fact 
that they celebrate marriage in the church. “Is not this 
a foule fault?" asks Paget ironically, “Is it not better to 

1 This Paget is not included by Brook in his Lives of the Puritans, 
but there can be no doubt that he represents Puritan beliefs. 

2 Hanbury, Historical Memorials, I, 334. 

3 The Apologeticall Narration was written by several Brownists in 
defense of their doctrines. 

4 Edwards, op. cit., p. 22. For account of Robinson’s Apologie, 
see below, p. 53, n. 1. 


44 ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 

be married in the Congregation with prayers and Gods 
blessing pronounced upon them by the minister, then to 
be contracted privately, and entered into a book as men do 
horses in Smithfield? ” 1 

Summing up these opinions, we have clear and abundant 
evidence that the Puritans, while not condemning mar¬ 
riage by magistrates as unlawful, considered it “lawful, 
more convenient and comfortable” that it should be solem¬ 
nized by the church. 


III. The Position and Practice of the 
Independents 

From the passages cited above, it will readily be seen 
that the Brownists or Independents went much further in 
their emancipation from ecclesiastical jurisdiction in marital 
affairs than did the other reformed churches. 2 This inno¬ 
vation was originated by Brown himself, who probably 
developed it from the teachings of Luther — perhaps 
through Cartwright’s Directory — and from the practice 
of Holland. 3 It was first expressed by him in his book, 
The life and manners of true Christians , published at Middel- 
burg in 1582, the principles of which he and his assistant 
Richard Harding preached upon their return to England 

1 Paget, op. cit., p. 50. 

2 Historians and legal writers have failed entirely to realize this 
fact, namely, that the Brownists differed radically from the other 
reformed churches in their ideas of marriage. The point is, however, 
of extreme importance: from a historical standpoint, it explains the 
origin of the civil marriage of New England, and from a literary one, it 
throws considerable light upon Milton’s conception of marriage. These 
points are both demonstrated below. 

* Brown had been a disciple of Cartwright and “built his schism 
upon Cartwright’s principles” (Heylyn, p. 295). It is evident that 
Brown goes much further in his “schism” than did Cartwright. 


CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 45 

in 1584. In speaking of marriage, Brown makes no men¬ 
tion of the church at all. The important things connected 
with marriage he declares to be espousals and cohabita¬ 
tion. The chief points to be observed are set forth as 
follows: 

“Mariage is a lawfull ioyning and fellowship of the husbande and 
wife, as of two in one fleshe, by partaking the vse of eche others 
loue, bodie, and giftes, in one communion of dueties: and especiallie 
in generation and bringing vp children. . . . 

“The couenant of Mariage is an agreement or partaking of con¬ 
ditions, to hold the communion thereof, so long as death or lawfull 
separation and divorcemet doth not breake it. 

“There is also a couenant before mariage as by bethrothing, 
espousing and agreement of friends and kindred. 

“Bethrothing is a couenant betweene the parties to be married, 
whereby they giue their troth that they will and shall marrie 
together, except some laweful vnmeetnes and disliking eche of the 
other do hinder it in the meane time. 

“Espousing is the couenant betweene them, whereby they are 
pronounced before -witnesses, to giue them selues, and to be giuen 
eche to other to become husband and wife.” 1 

This account, however, does not express definitely that 
marriage is a civil affair only and that the church has nothing 
to do with it, although such were clearly Brown’s views. 
But in 1587 we find these doctrines not only expressed but 
publicly proclaimed before the Court of High Commission by 
John Greenwood, a member of the Brownist sect. This 
was the first voice raised in England against marriage as 

1 Brown, op. cit., secs. 169 and 171. This important book is occa¬ 
sionally mentioned by historians but seems to have escaped examina¬ 
tion, although Hanbury quotes a few definitions from it. (Hist. Mem., 
I, 19 ff.) In the passage above, Brown uses the term marriage to mean 
not the ceremony but the state, the term betrothing to mean spousals 
de futuro, and the term espousing to mean spousals de praesenti. 


46 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


practised by the established church. 1 The following ques¬ 
tions and answers took place at Greenwood’s trial: 

“Q. What say you of marriage? Did you not marry one Bo- 
man and his wife in the Fleet? 

“G. No. Neither is marriage any part of the minister’s office. 

“Q. Who used prayer? 

“G. I think, that I used prayer, at that time. 

“Q. Who joined their hands together? 

“G. I know no such thing. They publicly acknowledged their 
consent before the assembly. 


“Winch. They make such marriages under a hedge. It hath 
been an order long received to marry by a minister. 

“G. There were many faithful witnesses of their mutual con¬ 
sent. And if it were not lawful, we have many ancient fathers, 
who, by your judgement, did amiss.” 2 

The evidence of Brown and Greenwood, somewhat in¬ 
complete in itself, is fully substantiated by Robert Barrow 
in his book A Brief Discovery of the False Churches , pub¬ 
lished in 1590, 3 three years before he was executed along with 

1 I do not take into account here the many objections which had 
been raised by the Puritans against ceremonial details in the orthodox 
marriage service. For notice of these, see Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity 
(ed. Rhys), II, 391 ff., and notes there. 

2 Brook, II, 35. It should be noted here that even the Bishop of 
Winchester acknowledges the validity of privately contracted mar¬ 
riages, although accomplished in the way he describes in the slang of 
the day. (Cf. Jaques’ speech to Touchstone, “And will you, being a 
man of your breeding, be married under a bush, like a beggar? Get 
you to church, and have a good priest, that can tell you what marriage 
is.” As You Like It, III, 3.) 

3 This book also has been entirely neglected by students of marital 
affairs, although quotations from it occur in Hanbury (I, 39 ff.). I 
have been able to find only the reprint of 1707, the editor of which, 
says Hanbury, “destroyed all the raciness of the original.” 



CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 


47 


Greenwood on the charge of writing seditious pamphlets. 
As this book gives the fullest expression I have found of 
the Independents’ principles in regard to marriage, I am 
led to quote from it at some length. Referring to “this so 
famous Church of England,” Barrow says: 

“Not to speak of their Orders or Injunctions which are Four 
times in the Year to be solemnly read, nor to repeat their Penance, 
with the bitter Curses and Comminations, their Lentfast; they have 
yet the Holy Ceremony of Marriage, solemnly kept in the Church 
(for the most part) upon the Lord’s-day: And an especial Composed 
Communion for the same. This Action is to be performed by the 
Priest, &c. who instructing the Parties to be joined in Wedlock 
what to say, and when to pray, &c. teacheth the Man to wed his 
Wife with a Ring, in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost. . . . 

“But in the mean time, I would fain know of the most Learned 
among them all, either Foreigners or Natives, where they find in 
the Old or New Testament, That Marriage is an Ecclesiastical Ac¬ 
tion, belonging to the Worship of God in his Church, to be done by 
the Minister as part of his Office and Function, and that in the 
Church, with such a Set of Collects, Exhortations, Psalms, An¬ 
thems, and Blessings composed for that Purpose. ... I have 
always found it the Parents Office to provide Marriages for their 
Children, whilst they remain under their Charge and Government: 
And that the Parties themselves affianced and betrothed each 
other in the Fear of God and the presence of such Witnesses as were 
thought fit to be present, and that in their Parents or other pri¬ 
vate Houses, without being obliged to go to Church for an Ordi¬ 
nance and Action of the Second Table, and see not why they might 
not as well bring any other Civil Business as this into the Church, 
for few believe themselves to be rightly Married except it be done 
by a Priest, after the prescribed manner, and that also in the due 
Seasons. . . . though all these Ceremonies are not observed in all 
the Reformed Churches.” 1 


1 Barrow, op. cit., p. 190 ff. 


48 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


The religious platform of the Brownists was officially 
drawn up in a Confession of Faith by the exiles in Holland 
in 1596 and published in 1598, 1 addressed “To the reuerend 
and learned me, Students of the holy Scripture, in the 
Christian Vniversities of Leyden in Holland, of Sanctan- 
drewes in Scotland, of Heidelberg, Geneva, and other like 
famous scholes of learning in the Low countries, Scotland, 
Germany, and France.” This book gives their general 
beliefs and their platform of church government, but is 
not detailed enough to be of assistance in the present study. 
But in their Third Petition to King James , their principles in 
regard to marriage are clearly expressed: 

“The Ministers aforesaid lawfully called by the Church where 
they are to administer ought to continue their functions according 
to Gods ordinance, and carefully to feed the flock of Christ com¬ 
mitted vnto them: Being not inioyned or suffred to beare civil 
offices withall, neither burthened with the execution of civil affaires, 
as the celebratio of Mariage, burying the dead, &c. which thinges 
belong as well to those without as within the Church.” 2 

That the Independents continued this practice in England 
is shown by a passage from Rogers’ Matrimoniall Honovr in 
1642. In discussing marriage by ministers, he says: “In 
the Scriptures, we see it was civilly carried, and dispatcht 
by the Elders at the gate: and now in some of the reformed 

1 These dates are given in the prefaces contained in An Apologie 
or Defense of . . . Brownists, pp. 15 and 5 respectively. Baillie ( Dis¬ 
suasive , f. *46) gives the date 1602 for the publication of the Confession 
of Faith. This Confession is also contained in the Apologie. 

2 Third Petition (contained in the Apologie), p. 54. Further evidence 
showing the opinion and practice of both the Independents and the 
Puritans may be found in Certain Letters (from exiles in Holland), 
1602 (Hanbury, I, 144); A Confession of Certain Christians in England, 
1616 (Hanbury, I, 300); Francis Johnson, A Christian Plea, 1617 
(Hanbury, I, 319). See also the quotations from J. Paget, Edwards, 
and E. Paget, pp. 43-44, above, and those from Baillie and Robinson, 
pp. 52-53, below. 


CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 


49 


Churches, we see its performed in like sort, officers being 
appointed to take their names, to booke them in a Record 
and so with a short ceremony to dismiss them.” 1 Finally, 
in 1653, Cromwell established civil marriage by law. 

IV. Continental, Scottish, and American 
Churches 

We have already seen that in Holland the state declared 
marriage a civil affair and insisted that the contract be made 
before a civil magistrate; we have also seen that the church 
continued to celebrate it by a solemnization of the vows 
previously made before the state. Calvin does not seem 
to have expressed himself in print on the question of the 
contract of matrimony; but from the fact that the Holland 
and Scottish churches, which emphasized the civil celebra¬ 
tion, took their discipline directly from the church of Geneva, 
it is clear that the church there also followed Luther’s 
principle of making the spousals the all-important element. 
This fact is borne out by the form of ceremony of the English 
church of Geneva, which was approved by Calvin himself. 
Instead of combining the forms for spousals de futuro and 
de praesenti with prayers and ceremonies by the minister, 
as is the case in the marriage service of the English Prayer 
Book of Edward VI, the Geneva reform liturgy, after pre¬ 
liminary exhortation and public inquiry as to impediments, 
simply requires the man to declare himself according to 
the following oath put by the minister: 

“You, N. shall protest here before God, and his holy Congrega¬ 
tion, that you have taken, and are now content to have N. here 

1 Rogers, op. cit., p. 110. Any description of the civil ceremony 
approved by the Independents is lacking, but it would seem that it 
consisted merely of a few words spoken by the magistrate immediately 
after the public performance of spousals de praesenti. The ceremony, 
however, was clearly a civil procedure and not merely a form of pub¬ 
lic spousals. 


50 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


present to your lawfull wife, promising to keep her, to love and 
intreat her in all things according to the duty of a faithfull husband, 
forsaking all other during her life, and briefly, to live in a holy con¬ 
versation with her, keeping faith and truth in all points, according 
as the word of God and his holy Gospel doth command/’ 1 

The points to be noted here are: first, there is no marrying 
or proclaiming of “man and wife” by the minister; second, 
there is nothing to the effect that “ God hath joined together ”; 
and third, the words on the part of the contracting couple 
are merely an acknowledgment that they have, before this 
time, taken one another as man and wife. These points 
contrast strongly with the orthodox ceremony of the Edward 
VI Prayer Book and later liturgies. Thus marriage at 
Geneva, like the one overseen by Greenwood in the Fleet 
prison, was merely a contract before witnesses, which the 
church might bless with its solemnization and prayers if 
the parties so desired. 

In Scotland to this day marriage may be made without 
any official intervention, by means of spousals de praesenti 
either with or without witnesses. This is both interesting 
and important, as it shows that although the Scotch Pres¬ 
byterian Church had a marriage ceremony in its liturgy, it 
nevertheless considered the actual marriage contract a 
private affair. In other words, the Romish influence in 
Scotland has never at any time been strong enough to make 

1 The Forme of Prayers and administration of the Sacraments , p. 25. 
The woman, of course, makes a similar vow. Preceding the Form of 
Marriage in these liturgies, there is this note of direction: “After the 
banes or contract have been published three severall dayes in the con¬ 
gregation (to the intent that if any person have interest or title of either 
parties, they may have sufficient time to make their challenge) the 
parties assemble at the beginning of the Sermon, and the minister at 
time convenient saith as followeth.” Then comes the exhortation etc. 
as described above. Compare this ceremony with that of the early 
Dutch church, pp. 38-39 and note, above. 


CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 


51 


secularly performed marriages in any sense clandestine. 
But the church did provide a ceremony for those who 
wished it and doubtless urged its use upon the people. 
Its form was taken over bodily in 1564, along with the rest 
of the service book, from the English church at Geneva, 
which has already been discussed. 1 The only other note 
that I find in regard to the Scottish ceremony is an item 
in the Second Book of Discipline , 2 1581, to the effect that 
among the duties of a minister “it belongs to him likewise, 
after lawful Proceeding in the matter by the Eldership, to 
solemnize Marriage betwixt them as are to be joined therein, 
and to pronounce the Blessing of the Lord upon them.” 3 

In considering the Puritans of New England, we must 
bear in mind that they were of the Independent sect and 
shared the extreme views already discussed. It is well 
known that marriage in New England was a civil affair 
from the first, but the origin of this practice has not here¬ 
tofore been definitely determined. 4 From my demonstration 
of the practice of the Independents, together with the fact 
that it was the congregation of John Robinson, Brown’s 
leading disciple, which first emigrated to this country, it 
is fairly obvious that the early American civil marriage was 
a direct result of the principles and practice of the Inde¬ 
pendent Church, encouraged perhaps by the state laws of 
Holland. But as the point is here made for the first time, 

1 This fact is stated on the title page of the Scottish book of liturgies, 
which may be found in The Confessions of Faith of the Church of Scot¬ 
land. John Knox (History of Reformation in Scotland, p. 333) states 
that the Church of Scotland sent an official reply in 1566 to the confes¬ 
sion of faith of the continental Reform churches to the effect that 
“they agreed in all points with those churches and differed in nothing 
from them” except in the keeping of certain festal days. 

2 Contained in The Confessions. 

3 Op. cit., p. 459. 

4 Howard, II, 127 ff., devotes several pages to the different sup¬ 
posed causes of the New England civil marriage. 


52 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


it will be well to quote some further evidence in support 
of it. 

This evidence we find in contemporary pamphlets, by 
which we are able to set forth the whole course of events. 
Robert Baillie, writing in 1595. of the Independents, says: 
“For the marriage blessing, they applaud the Brownists 
Doctrin, they send it from the Church to the Town-house, 
making its solemnization the duty of the Magistrate; this 
is the constant practise of all in New England: the prime 
of the Independent Ministers now at London, have beene 
married by the Magistrate, and all that can be obtained of 
any of them, is to be content that a Minister in the name of 
the Magistrate and his Commissioner may solemnize that 
holy band.” 1 A passage from Ephriam Paget serves to 
continue the story. Speaking of the spread of the Brownist 
doctrines, he says: “The first man of note that held their 
opinions (as Mr. Edwards writeth) was one Mr. Robinson, 
who leaving Norwich male-content, became a rigid Brownist: 
but afterwards by some conference with learned men, he 
was brought to some moderation, and writ a book recanting 
some of his opinions. This man dying, 2 many of his congre¬ 
gation went from Leyden unto New England, and planted 
at new Plymouth, whither they carried Mr. Robinsons 
opinions, which spread far there: and by letters also and 
other meanes were conveighed into old England: and to this 
purpose he citeth a letter by Master Cottens.” 3 Finally, 
we have the expression of Robinson himself in his defense 
of the Brownists in 1619. “We cannot assent,” he says, 

1 Baillie, Dissvasive, p. 115. See also Lechford, Plaine-dealing: or, 
Newes from New England, p. 39, which Baillie cites as his authority. 

2 The writer is mistaken here. The Mayflower sailed before Robin¬ 
son’s death. 

5 Paget, Heresiography, p. 69. The reference to “Mr. Edwards” is 
to Thomas Edwards, Answer to the Apologeticall Narration. “Master 
Cottens” is doubtless John Cotton. 


CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 53 

“to the receaved opinion and practice answerable in the 
Reformed Churches, by which Pastours thereof do cele¬ 
brate Marriage publiquely and by vertue of their office.” 1 

The first marriage in New England was that of Edward 
Winslow and Susanna White in 1621, performed “accord¬ 
ing to the laudable custome of the Low-countries ... as 
being a civill thing.” 2 There is no reason to think that the 
church was not allowed to invoke a blessing upon this union, 
for even the Brownist Greenwood offered a prayer at the 
marriage in the Fleet; nevertheless the ceremony itself was 
a civil one. “Thus, in the first New England wedding, a 
precedent was given which has never yet been set aside, 
and which marked clearly the distinction between the 
jurisdiction of the civil power in ‘causes matrimonial’ and 
the legitimate jurisdiction of the church.” 3 The same kind 
of ceremony is recorded by Governor Winthrop at a wedding 
solemnized at Boston in 1647. The minister of the bride¬ 
groom’s church had been asked to preach, but the magis¬ 
trates objected to this and gave as one of their reasons that 
they “were not willing to bring in the English custom of 
ministers performing the solemnity of marriage, which 
sermons at such times might induce, but if any ministers 
were present, and would bestow a word of exhortation, etc., 
it was permitted.” 4 The practice recorded in these two 

1 Robinson, Apologie , p. 40. This book was first published in Latin 
in 1619 under the title Apologia . . . quorundam Christianorum 
. . . dictorum Brownistorum. It was translated in 1625 under the 
title A iust and necessarie Apologie of certain Christians . . . called 
Brownists or Barrowists. It must not be confused with the anonymous 
Apologie or Defense of . . . Brovvnists, 1604. 

2 This was Winslow’s second marriage. He was first married in 
Holland “before the magistrats in the Town or Stat house.” Bradford, 
History of Plymouth Plantation , I, 216 and n. 4. 

* Bacon, Genesis of New England Churches, p. 341. 

4 Winthrop, History of New England, II, 382. 


54 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


instances was first given legal authority in Massachusetts, 
in 1646, when a statute was passed providing “that no person 
whatsoever in this Jurisdiction shall joyne any persons 
together in Marriage, but the Magistrate, or such other as the 
General Court, or Court of Assistants shal Authorize. ,, 1 
Commenting upon the New England marriage ceremony, 
Howard says: “The conception of wedlock which existed 
there from the beginning was identical with that which 
later found expression in the writings of Milton and the 
legislation of Cromwell.” 2 

V. The English Church of the Commonwealth 

It is impossible to believe that these conditions in the 
churches of the continent, Scotland, and New England, 
together with the practice of the Independents in England 
itself, should not affect both English public opinion in gen¬ 
eral and the doctrines of the more conservative Reformed 
churches of England in regard to marriage. The separa¬ 
tion between the latter and those outside the mother country 
was much less than may be thought. There was constant 
intercourse and exchange of views among all parties, both 
by actual meeting of representatives and by letters to and 
fro. Among the tracts of the Thomason collection, are 
letters from one church to another asking advice and dis¬ 
cussing practices, pamphlets of all kinds on ecclesiastical 
questions of the day, petitions, protests, apologies, defenses, 
etc. Ministers and others even returned from the New 
England colonies and advocated the practices in vogue 
there. Edward Winslow, above mentioned, on a visit to 
England in 1634, openly defended the practice of civil 
marriage and was imprisoned in the Fleet for seventeen 

1 Whitmore, Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, p. 172. 

* Howard, II, 127. 


CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 


55 


weeks as a consequence. Despite the censorship of the 
press, a good deal of controversial writing by the adherents 
of the various sects got into print, but on account of the 
number and importance of other questions, there is little that 
throws any light upon the trend of public opinion on our 
subject. The tracts already cited, together with Winslow’s 
imprisonment, incline us to believe that the more conserva¬ 
tive reformers clung tenaciously to the ecclesiastical cere¬ 
mony, but at the same time they give evidence that this 
was done more for the sake of expediency than because 
marriage was thought to be essentially a religious affair. 1 
John Donne probably expressed the general conservative 
point of view in saying, “As marriage is a civil contract, it 
must be done so in public, as that it may have the testimony 
of men; as marriage is a religious contract, it must be so 
done, as that it may have the benediction of the priest: in 
a marriage without testimony of men they cannot claim 
any benefit by the law; in a marriage without the bene¬ 
diction of the priest they cannot claim any benefit of the 
Church.” 2 On the other hand, it is certain from such 
testimony as that of Rogers and Baillie that among the 
Independents marriage was actually performed by the 
magistrate. 3 

The result of all these influences upon the parliamentary 
assembly of divines was to effect a compromise by which 
it was “judged expedient that marriage be solemnized by 
a lawful minister,” but evidently from the phraseology used, 
a marriage made either privately or by magistrate was still 
deemed valid. This decision, drawn up by the assembly in 
1643, was made law by act of Parliament on Jan. 3, 1645, 

1 See especially the quotation from E. Paget, pp. 43-44, above. 

2 Donne, Works , IV, 33. See also the preface to the marriage ser¬ 
vice in the Directory, p. 56, below. 

3 See above, pp. 48, 52. 


56 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


and published in the Directory of Public Worship. The 
ceremony itself was adapted from that of the Scotch Pres¬ 
byterian church, which, as said above, came verbatim from 
the English Church at Geneva. A prefatory paragraph 
gives the authorized position of the Reformed churches on 
the subject: 

“Although Marriage be no Sacrament, nor peculiar to the 
Church of God, but common to mankinde, and of publique interest 
in every Commonwealth, yet because such as marry are to marry 
in the Lord, and have especiall need of Instruction, Direction, and 
Exhortation, from the Word of God, at their entring into such a new 
condition; and of the blessing of God upon them therein, we judge 
it expedient, that marriage be solemnized by a lawfull Minister 
of the Word, that he may accordingly councel them and pray for a 
blessing upon them.” 1 

The ceremony itself consists of a short exhortation and 
instruction, the exchange of vows between the man and the 
woman, the pronunciation of them as “man and wife” 
by the minister, and a concluding prayer. Altogether the 
form is much shorter and much simpler than that of the 
Edward VI Prayer Book , towards which the Reformers were 
united in their objection. The vows, similar for both man 
and woman, followed these words: 

“I, N, doe take thee N. to be my married Wife, and doe, in the 
presence of God, and before this congregation, promise and cove¬ 
nant to be a loving and faithful Husband unto thee, untill God shall 
separate us by death.” 2 

This ceremony acknowledges the office of the church to a 
greater extent than did the original one of Geneva, as ap¬ 
proved by the Synod of Dort in 1618, the chief difference 
being the minister’s pronouncing the couple “man and 
wife.” But it must not be supposed that the ancient custom 

1 Scobell, I, 86. 

2 Ibid., I, 87. 


CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 57 

of marriage by spousals de praesenti was given up; on the 
contrary, the omission of the first part of the existing ortho¬ 
dox ceremony from the new form, is evidence that it con¬ 
tinued to be used as the form for spousals. Furthermore, 
in legal circles, both civil and ecclesiastical, spousals de 
praesenti were still regarded as marriage and impeded any 
other union. 

We may infer from this and from Cromwell's marriage 
act eight years later that the conflict of authprity in the 
two methods of effecting matrimony still produced an un¬ 
satisfactory state of affairs; or, to put it differently, the 
particular conditions which previously had been a source 
of evils and entanglements in the ecclesiastical courts, re¬ 
mained unaltered. As a result, it was soon realized that 
marriage must be regarded as either entirely a civil or 
entirely an ecclesiastical affair, and that any combination 
of the two authorities was sure to be disastrous. 

The question before the English nation evidently was: 
Should the contract, or spousals de praesenti, already 
acknowledged as marriage itself, be considered as the 
authorized ceremony; or should the church be given com¬ 
plete authority to perform marriage, and some attempt be 
made to invalidate the force and permanency of the private 
contract? 1 For some reason, there seems to be little or 
no expression of opinion on this subject from the time the 
assembly deemed it expedient that marriage be an eccle¬ 
siastical office to the passage of the civil marriage act; but 
we may be sure, from the previously expressed sentiments 

1 No one hitherto seems to have looked at the question in this way. 
The general impression among historians seems to be that Cromwell’s 
act flew in the face of all existing conditions and instituted an entirely 
new marriage process. I think I have demonstrated that such was not 
the case, especially as the church ceremony continued to be used in 
addition to the civil after the latter was established in 1653. 


58 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


of the Independents and from the readiness of Parliament to 
pass Cromwelhs act, that the subject continued to be 
debated with increasing tendency towards the more radical 
attitude. At any rate, the decision was finally reached to 
follow the teachings of the German Reformers and the Eng¬ 
lish Independents and the practice of Holland and New 
England, and to put all marital affairs into the hands of 
the state. That is, the power of the church was abolished, 
and spousals de praesenti performed before the civil magis¬ 
trate and in the presence of two witnesses, became the actual 
and authorized form of marriage. This was accomplished 
by an act of Parliament in 1653, according to which the 
ceremony consisted simply of the vows as set forth in the 
Directory , slightly changed in wording, without prayer or 
exhortation. The act concludes: 

“And it is further Enacted, That the Man and Woman having 
made sufficient proof of the Consent of their Parents or Guardians 
as aforesaid, and expressed their consent unto Marriage, in the 
maner and by the words aforesaid, before such Justice of the Peace 
in the presence of two or more credible Witnesses; The said Justice 
of the Peace may and shall declare the said Man and Woman to be 
from thenceforth Husband and Wife; and from and after such 
consent so expressed, and such declaration made, the same (as to 
the form of Marriage) shall be good and effectual in Law. And no 
other Marriage whatsoever within the Commonwealth of England 
after Sept. 29, 1653, shall be held or accompted a Marriage accord¬ 
ing to the Laws of England.” 1 

My contention that this was not a revolutionary measure 
but merely a shifting of the emphasis from the ecclesiastical 

1 Scobell, II, 236; also to be found in the newspapers of the time. 
Howard, I, 424 ff., makes a great deal of the stipulation in this act 
that marriages must be properly recorded in special parish registers. 
He seems to overlook the fact that this same clause was contained in 
the Directory eight years earlier. 


CONTROVERSIES REGARDING MARRIAGE 


59 


celebration to the private, is borne out by the lack of writing 
in opposition to the change 1 and by the continuation of the 
church ceremony as a blessing of God upon the contract 
civilly made, just as the Independents had consistently 
claimed it to be. Jeaffreson in his Brides and Bridals 
makes the statement that usually “the wedding was relig¬ 
iously solemnized in the church, after or before the per¬ 
formance of the purely civil affirmation in the magistrate’s 
parlour ... in accordance with the instructions of the 
Directory for Public Worship.” 2 There can be no doubt, 
however, that the civil marriage was condemned by the 
more orthodox clergy, especially those who still supported 
episcopacy, and by the political and religious enemies of 
Cromwell, who saw in the act only another unreasonable 
measure by a tyranical usurper. The act, nevertheless, 
had the support of the Independents at least, of whom 
Milton was the most prominent and the most powerful. 

1 Of course, the censorship of the press might account for this to 
some extent. In looking through the Thomason tracts of the period, 
I find only one, aside from newspapers (which contain nothing of im¬ 
portance), that mentions the subject at all. This is a Letter from a 
Gentleman in the Country , which is chiefly a defense of the form used 
by the church and an expression of the writer’s failure to see any 
need for the new act. Howard, I, 432, n. 1, accepts Friedberg’s sug¬ 
gestion ( Eheschliessung , 328, n. 2) that the controversial literature on 
the subject may have been great, but observes that, if so, little has 
been preserved. In the Sutro collection (San Francisco) of thousands 
of pamphlets of the time, he was able to find only one, omitting news¬ 
papers, on this topic. Friedberg, he says, had a similar experience in 
the Berlin library. The British Museum, according to my experience, 
yields but one more, and that not controversial. It seems time, there¬ 
fore, to give up the idea that there was written controversy on the sub¬ 
ject, especially as Thomason is known to have obtained practically all 
tracts of any importance during this period for the Museum library. 
Of course, satirists took occasion to poke fun, but such writing may be 
disregarded here. For references to it, see Howard, I, 432-3. 

2 Jeaffreson, II, 69. See also Howard, I, 419, n. 2. 


60 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


In his treatise The Likeliest Means to remove Hirelings out 
of the Church , published in 1659, he reasserts the position 
originally laid down by the Brownists, summarizes the 
history of ecclesiastical marriage, and upholds firmly Crom¬ 
well’s act: 

“As for marriages, that ministers should meddle with them, as 
not sanctified or legitimate, without their celebration, I find no 
ground in scripture either of precept or example. Likeliest it is 
. . . that in imitation of heathen priests, who were wont at nup- 
tuals to use many rites and ceremonies, and especially, judging it 
would be profitable, and the increase of their authority, not to be 
spectators only in business of such concernment to the life of man, 
they insinuated that marriage was not holy without their benediction, 
and for the better colour, made a sacrament; being of itself a civil 
ordinance, a household contract, a thing indifferent and free to the 
whole race of mankind, not as religious, but as men: best, indeed, 
undertaken to religious ends, and as the apostle saith, I Cor. vii, 
‘ in the Lord.’ Yet not therefore invalid or unholy without a minister 
and his pretended necessary hallowing, more than any other act, 
enterprise, or contract of civil life, which ought all to be done in 
the Lord and to his glory: all which, no less than marriage, were 
by the cunning of priests heretofore, as material to their profit, 
transacted at the altar. Our divines deny it to be a sacrament; 
yet retain the celebration, till prudently a late parliament recov¬ 
ered the civil liberty of marriage from their encroachment, and 
transferred the ratifying and registering thereof from the canonical 
shop to the proper cognizance of civil magistrates.” 1 

1 Milton, Prose Works, III, 370. Notice that it is the “ratifying 
and registering” on which Milton lays emphasis, following out the 
theory that marriage itself was a private affair, “a household contract.” 


CHAPTER III 

THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 
I. Legal Situation 

When England under Henry VIII broke away from the 
Church of Rome, the canon laws of Catholicism in regard 
to divorce remained in operation; indeed, the English 
Protestant church never has drawn up a code of laws to 
supersede them. The first movement towards any actual 
reform of the Roman Catholic doctrines or church govern¬ 
ment was the appointment of a committee, in accordance 
with the act of 25 Henry VIII, ca. 19 (1534), to draw up a 
new platform for the ecclesiastical doctrine and discipline 
of England. In the meantime, however, it was provided 
that “suche canons constitucions ordynaunces and Synodals 
provynciall being allredy made, which be not contraryant 
nor repugnant to the lawes statutes and customes of this 
Realme nor to the damage or hurte of the Kynges preroga- 
tyve Royall, shall mowe styll be used and executed.” 1 
The loose terms herein contained were never more fully 
defined; and the evil practices in divorce cases, which con¬ 
tinued unabated pending the action of the committee, led 
to the King’s wholesale attempt in 1540 to stop divorces 
and separations altogether, except in cases of marriage 
within the forbidden degrees. Previous to this date, Strype 
tells us, divorces, or rather annulments of marriage, “ might¬ 
ily prevailed. . . . For it was ordinary to annuli marriage 
and divorce man and wife on some pretext of precontract.” 2 

1 Statutes of the Realm, III, 461. 

2 Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, I, 114. 

61 


62 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


The preamble to the famous act of 1540, known as 32 Hen. 
VIII, ca. 38, is very instructive in regard to the conditions 
of the time, and expresses practically the same opinions 
concerning ecclesiastical jurisdiction over marital affairs 
as were later proclaimed in Parliament in 1607 and by 
Milton in his pamphlet of 1659; 1 but it is too long to 
quote in full. It may be abbreviated as follows: 

“Whereas heretofore the usurped power of the Bishop of Rome 
hathe alwayes entangled and troubled the mere jurisdiction and 
legal power of this Realme of England and also unquietid muche the 
subjectis of the same ... by making that unlaufull whiche by 
Goddis wourde is laufull bothe in mariages and other thinges; . . . 
mariages have been brought into suche uncertainty thereby that no 
mariage coulde be so surely knytt and bounden but it shulde lye 
in either of the parties power and arbitre ... to prove a precon- 
tracte a kynnerede an alliance or a carnall knowledge to defeate 
the same. ... Be it therefore enacted . . . [that] . . . suche 
mariages being contracte and solemnised in the face of the churche 
and consumate with bodily knowledge . . . shalbe . . . taken to 
be lauful good juste and indissoluble, . . . notwithstanding any 
precontracte . . . not consumate with bodily knowledge . . . [or] 
. . . any dispensation prescription lawe or other thinge . . . 
And that no reservation or prohibition, Goddis law except, shall 
trouble or impeche anny mariage without the Leviticall degrees.” 2 

The church, however, maintained its former power on 
the ground that the phrase “God’s law excepted” applied 
to all marriages made in the face of the recognized eccle¬ 
siastical impediments, and that any such contract was void 
ab initio. Thus the entire act was made of no effect in 
actual application. Of conditions following this attempt to 
curtail the power of the church, T. E. says: “This Statute, 
though it seemed to be made vpon good and great considera- 

1 See Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, I, 30, 57. 

2 Statutes , III, 792. 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 


63 


tions, (because precontracts too too slenderly proued, and 
sometime but onely surmized, helped the Romish oppres¬ 
sion . . .) yet many did after the making of it, very disso¬ 
lutely come from their first vowes, . . . slipperily leauing 
their former Contracts.” 1 Meanwhile the committee of 
thirty-two, provided for in the act of 25 Hen. VIII, ca. 19, 
was at work. According to Milton, it was composed of 
“divines and lawyers, of whom Cranmer, the archbishop, 
Peter Martyr, and Walter Haddon (not without the assist¬ 
ance of sir John Cheeke . . . ) were the chief.” 2 

The Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, as the decisions 
of this committee were called, shows clearly the influence 
of Luther’s teachings and of German practices. The former 
were followed implicitly in the abolition of separation a 
mensa et thoro and in the establishment of actual divorce 
with permission for the innocent party to remarry for the 
causes of desertion, adultery, and other ill usages, in prac¬ 
tical accordance with the Zurich marriage ordinance of 1525. 3 
Furthermore, husband and wife were put upon equal footing 
in divorce suits. In regard to the impediments and the 
annulment of marriage, the King’s committee expressed 
itself much more definitely than did the German Reformers, 
who rather shirked the whole situation; but in their recom¬ 
mendations thereupon they harked back to the Romish 
canons, and except for one or two details, suggested no 
changes in the existing conditions. The Reformatio Legum 
is important only in showing the attitude of the public 
leaders of the day, for Henry died before he could force it 
through Parliament, and it was defeated under Edward 

1 T. E., Lawes Resolvtions of Womens Rights, Bk. II, sec. xxix. 

2 Milton, Prose Works, II, 237. Milton is mistaken in saying (ibid.) 
that the committee was appointed by Edward VI. 

3 See above, p. 12, n. 3. 


64 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


VI by the House of Commons. 1 Thus the old Catholic 
regime with all its abuses continued. Strype says that at 
this time annulment and divorce were frequent. “Noble¬ 
men would very frequently put away their wives and marry 
others if they like another woman better or were like to ob¬ 
tain wealth by her. And they would sometimes pretend 
their wives to be false to their beds and so be divorced and 
marry again such as they pleased.” 2 

From this time on to Cromwell’s day, actual conditions 
remained unchanged. The decree of 32 Hen. VIII, ca. 38, 
was repealed and repassed alternately until the Star Chamber 
finally established it permanently in 1601, but it seems 

1 That the bill was defeated by the Commons without ever reach¬ 
ing the Lords, is illuminating in showing how little the Reformation 
had as yet actually touched English public opinion. 

2 Quoted by Kitchin, A History of Divorce, p. 177. Kitchin adds: 
“Thus the Earl of Pembroke divorced his first wife and married a 
daughter of Sir Philip Sidney.” He is badly mixed here. Sidney had 
but one daughter, and she married the Earl of Rutland. Pembroke’s 
first marriage, however, was annulled, after which he did marry again; 
his second wife died, and he then married Mary Sidney, the famous 
sister of the poet. 

The case of Mary Queen of Scots and Bothwell is still more inter¬ 
esting. In the first place, Bothwell got Mary’s husband out of the way 
by murdering him (thus making any later marriage with Mary illegal). 
Then he was divorced from his wife in a Protestant court on the ground 
that he was an adulterer. But since he was not the innocent party in 
the divorce, the Protestant minister, Mr. Craig, refused to marry him 
to the Queen; nor would a Catholic priest perform the marriage, since 
that church did not allow remarriage after such a divorce. To obviate 
this predicament, an annulment of his former marriage was obtained 
from a Catholic court, especially appointed by Mary, on the ground of 
alleged affinity, which could be maintained only by admitting or invent¬ 
ing a former illicit connection with one of his wife’s relatives. After 
this, a bishop was found to perform the marriage with Mary. Later, 
Bothwell’s divorced wife married the Earl of Sutherland. 

See also the statement of Bunny, p. 83, below. The divorce and re¬ 
marriage of Lady Essex (Frances Howard) is another case in point here. 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 65 

to have had no effect whatever at any time, as the church 
was able to escape its provisions through the loophole of 
“God’s law excepted.” 1 Edward VI showed his approval 
of the views of the German Reformers by bringing Fagius 
and Bucer over to Cambridge as professors of Hebrew and 
Divinity respectively; 2 but his beliefs, whatever they were, 
took no more active form, except for the repealing of the 
above law of Henry VIII. These two elements, the Romish 
practices and the principles of the German Reformation, 
continued as the grounds of contention in matrimonial 
affairs throughout our period, and indeed, they continue 
to the present day. The followers of the Catholic Church 
as well as those Protestants who clung to prelatical epis¬ 
copacy, upheld the Roman practices; whereas the Puritans 
and the various sects which split off from them, not only 
upheld the principles of the German Reformers, particularly 
in their platform of divorce (with remarriage for the inno¬ 
cent party) for adultery and desertion, but also opposed 
the whole Roman theory of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in 
marital affairs. The efforts of these dissenting sects, how¬ 
ever, have never been of sufficient weight in England to 
overthrow the influence of Rome except momentarily, and 
to this day the old impediments, the narrowness of the 
grounds for divorce, and the discrimination against the 
woman, are upheld to a greater extent in England than in 
any other Protestant country. 

1 This exception was perfectly well recognized in legal circles. Coke 
says on the point: “There be also other divorces [beside those for con¬ 
sanguinity and affinity] which declare the marriage to be void, as 
divorce causa frigitatis, where the party hath perpetuam impotentiam gen- 
erationis, &c, and causa metus, sive duritiae, also causa impubertatis: 
these marriages are said to be prohibited by God’s law, otherwise the 
statute of 32H8 would extend to them.” Institutes, Pt. II, p. 687. 

2 Milton is mistaken in saying ( Prose Works, II, 72) that Fagius was 
professor of Divinity. 


66 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


So far we have concerned ourselves only with legislation. 
Almost as important is the jurisdiction thereupon, especially 
as the principles of separation, divorce, and annulment, 
and the grounds for such suits, varied greatly among the 
different churches, as will be shown more fully later on. 

There can be no doubt that the proper and usual way to 
conduct any divorce proceedings was by means of the church 
courts, of which there were five recognized grades: (1) 
Archdeacon’s, held by an archdeacon or his representative; 
(2) Consistory, held by cathedral officers, the bishop’s 
chancellor or commissionary acting as judge; (3) Court of 
Arches, at London and York only, which handled appeals 
from Consistory courts; (4) Court of Delegates, or com¬ 
missioners appointed by the sovereign, which handled 
appeals from the Courts of Arches; (5) Court of High 
Commissions for “all manner of jurisdiction, privileges, 
and preeminences touching any spiritual or ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction within the realms of England and Ireland.” 
Besides these, there were other local courts, “some of them 
mere shops for the sale of ‘ dispensations, licenses, faculties, 
and other remnants of the papal extortions.’” 1 It was to 
these “mere shops” that people of meager circumstances 
went for divorce. Indeed, from the repeated references 
to “the minister,” it seems as if questions were often de¬ 
cided and divorces granted by the parish priest alone. 2 
Certainly among the Puritans, if their cases were sub¬ 
mitted to legal jurisdiction of any kind, divorces for adultery 
or desertion, after 1603, must have been granted by a single 
minister or some sort of local magistrate or informal assembly, 
since the established church did not grant divorces on these 
grounds. Enough has been said elsewhere to show the 
corruption of the ecclesiastical courts in periods previous 
to the one under consideration here and the advantage 

1 Bacon, p. 77. 

2 E. g., see quotation from Perkins, p. 80, n. 4, below. 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 


67 


taken of these conditions by those who could afford it 
financially. That this state of affairs had not improved 
is abundantly shown by contemporary practices and com¬ 
ment. John Cotton, who spoke from experience, says, “The 
ecclesiastical courts are like the courts of the high-priests 
and pharisees, which Solomon, by a spirit of prophesy, 
styleth, dens of lions , and mountains of leopards. Those 
who have had to do with them have found them to be 
markets of the sins of the people, the cages of unclean¬ 
ness, the forgers of extortion, the tabernacles of bribery, 
and contrary to the end of civil government.” 1 

The jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts in divorce 
affairs, as has been shown, was of early origin, but with the 
coming of the Reformation and the conception of marriage 
as a civil affair and not a sacrament, we find a new concep¬ 
tion of divorce arising also. This is that marriage is dis¬ 
solved ipso facto, without any jurisdiction whatever, by the 
mere existence of causes recognized as proper grounds for 
its dissolution. The case here, as investigated up to date, 
is stated by Howard as follows: 

“The researches of Stolzel have clearly established that in the 
beginning the reformers returned to the principle of self-divorce 
prevailing among the ancient Romans and Hebrews, and accepted 
by some of the early church councils. . . . When an adequate 
cause exists, a marriage is thereby dissolved in favor of the innocent 
person without any magisterial authority whatsoever. If in cer¬ 
tain cases, in order to establish the existence of the grounds of dis¬ 
solution, any action is needful, it is regarded as extra-judicial; and 
when gradually such informal proceedings have grown into an 
orderly process dealing directly with the question of divorce, this 
process concludes with a decree; not that the marriage is thereby 
dissolved, but that it has already been dissolved in consequence of 
the grounds now established. . . . Luther and other Protestant 


1 Brook, III, 155. 


68 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


leaders accepted the theory just explained that a marriage is 
‘broken’ or dissolved when a proper cause intervenes; and if without 
exception they insisted that the married persons should not separate 
themselves, but appeal to public authority, they had in mind, as 
Luther plainly shows, the establishment of the fact of wedlock 
already broken in order, where it was desired, to grant the 
permission of marrying again.” 1 

Although this conception of the possibility and practice 
of private divorce, followed by civil sanction, after something 
the same manner as the Hebrew practice, seems to be 
generally admitted as having existed to some extent in Ger¬ 
many, no one has as yet traced its course in England. 
Whether the similar condition, which actually did exist 
in England, took its source from the German Reformation, 
or whether private divorce had continued unbroken]y in 
some measure from early times down, which seems unlikely, 
is hardly worth debating here. At any rate, we find exactly 
the same attitude existing in England as that just described 
of Germany. Hooper, after speaking of the causes of divorce, 
says, “The persons may by the authority of God’s word and 
the ministry of the magistrates 2 be separated.” 3 Whately 
in the beginning of the next century says, “Now if it shall 
fall out, that either of the married persons shall frowardly 
and peruersely withdraw themselves from this matrimonial 1 
societie (which fault is termed desertion), the person thus 

1 Howard, II, 69. There is a reference to this practice of self-divorce 
in Bullinger’s Christen state of Matrimonye, f. lxxvii, which by urging 
a regular proceeding upon the persons concerned, supports Howard’s 
remarks. “Though they be persuaded to haue lawfull occasions of 
divorcemet/ yet they may not be iudges in their awne causes/ nor 
take ought here in had by their awne authoryte/ but let their matter 
come before their ordinate Judge.” 

2 The word magistrates always refers to civil rather than ecclesiasti¬ 
cal officers. 

* Hooper, Early Writings , p. 379. 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 


69 


offending, hath so farre violated the couenant of marriage, 
that . . . the bond of matrimony is dissolued, and the 
other party so truly and totally loosed from it, that (after 
an orderly proceeding with the Church and Magistrate in 
that behalf) it shall be no sinne for him or her to make a 
new contract with another person.” 1 

The decree granted by the civil or ecclesiastical court to 
permit the second marriage, had the effect, unintentional 
or not, of granting the previous divorce; so that to this 
extent any such private divorce differed from the old He¬ 
brew practice. There is, nevertheless, evidence that the 
ancient practice of private divorce existed during our whole 
period, especially among the Independents. 2 Becon, in his 
Homily against Whoredom , has this passage: “Of this vice 
cometh a great part of the divorces, which now-a-days be 
so commonly accustomed and used by men’s private author¬ 
ity, to the . . . breach of the . . . bond of matrimony.” 3 
In 1552, the use of such private divorce was deemed to be 
of sufficient prevalence to warrant its being mentioned and 
condemned in the Reformatio Legum. John Knox reports 
a private divorce with remarriage in Scotland in 1560, 
which though opposed by the magistrates was upheld by 

1 Whately, Bride-bush , p. 25. See also the doctrine of the Puritans 
as drawn by their assembly, p. 88, below. 

2 This practice among the Independents has been hinted at before, 
but never has any real evidence been brought to bear on the subject 
by either historian or legal writer. Inderwick comes the nearest of 
any to making a definite statement, in saying, “The Jewish law, to 
which they much adhered, provided for and regulated divorces.” ( The 
Interregnum , p. 46.) It is well known that the Jews in England con¬ 
tinued their old practice of private divorce. Their laxity in this respect, 
says Inderwick, “wasfound in 1655 to be one of the strongest arguments 
against their proposed admission to the rights of citizenship.” (Ibid.) 

3 Becon, op. dt. (pub. in Catechism, etc. by Parker So.), p. 647. This 
homily was included in the official book of homilies published by 
authority in 1547. 


70 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


public opinion. 1 At the other end of our period, John 
Paget, writing to Ainsworth, a leader of some of the Inde¬ 
pendent churches, objects to the practice of that sect “that 
you also allow Divorces among yourselves, without author¬ 
ity of the magistrates.” 2 At about the same time, Bur- 
roughes, in his lectures on Hosea, refers to the custom as 
then current: “It is true when a man putts away his wife 
for whoredom and giveth her a bill of divorce, he will never 
take her again.” 3 Milton not only recognizes the practice 
but even makes the defense of it one of the principal points 
in his Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce . 4 Finally, Baillie, 
in 1645, commenting upon the Brownists, says, “As their 
mariage is private, so likewise must their Divorces, without 
cognizance either of Magistrate or Minister”; and of the 
Independents, he says, “Concerning Divorces, some of 
them goe farre beyond any of the Brownists: not to speak 
of Mr. Milton, ... for I doe not know certainely whether 
this man professeth Independency (albeit all the Heretics 
here, whereof ever I heard, avow themselves Independ¬ 
ents).” 6 Scattered as this evidence may seem, it is quite 
sufficient to establish the fact that divorce by private author¬ 
ity, without recourse to either magistrate or ecclesiastic, 
was practised throughout the whole of the period we are 
studying. 

II. The Puritan-Anglican Controversy on 
Divorce 

The controversy between the Puritans and the Church 
of England in regard to divorce, from the time of the Ref¬ 
ormation to Cromwell’s civil marriage act, ran somewhat 

1 Knox, History of Reformation in Scotland, p. 241. 

2 Hanbury, I, 333. 

8 Burroughes, Exposition of Hosea, p. 228. 

4 See below, pp. 96-97. 

6 Baillie, Dissvasive, p. 116; also in Hanbury, III, 146. 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 


71 


the same course as did that over the celebration of marriage, 
with which it is more or less connected. The controversy 
over the divorce of Henry VIII, which began in 1527, was the 
chief factor in precipitating the whole question; but as 
divorce matters had already been the subject of much dis¬ 
cussion and some legislation among the Reformers in Ger¬ 
many, the King’s affair can not be regarded as the entire 
cause of the dispute in England. Nevertheless, it brought 
to a head an illness of the church and state which otherwise 
might have increased and spread for some years to come. 
Yet the attention directed to the question at this time was, 
after all, but momentary, and after the immediate issue had 
been settled to the King’s advantage, — if to no one else’s 
— and he himself had made a desultory attempt to better 
conditions by means of the act of 1540, excitement died 
down and the first chapter of the controversy was over. 

How far this chapter was a cause of the second and in 
many ways more important one, it is difficult to say. After 
the King’s death, writing on the subject became directed 
more to the general field of divorce matters and less to the 
specific case of Henry and Catherine. One finds occasional 
references in the later books to the royal affair, but they 
are too few to argue from. 1 The most we can say, perhaps, 
is that the King’s case, by bringing the subject into public 
discussion, stimulated thought and controversy upon it, 
which in the wider issue uncovered, soon lost sight of the 
particular instance. In this development we find no books 
on divorce alone until the question of remarriage arose, 
along towards 1600. 2 What expression there was, is to be 
found in books on domestic life, in tracts on the doctrine and 
government of the church, and in the Parliamentary debates 
on the subject of the reform of the ecclesiastical courts. 
The domestic books cannot be said to be written in the spirit 
of controversy; they are rather merely the expression of 

1 E. g., see below, p. 114, n. 1. 

2 See below, p. 81 ff. 


72 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 




individual standards and opinions, without much consid¬ 
eration of what any one else thought on the subject. On 
the whole, all the writers of these books advocate much 
the same principles, with one important exception. This 
is the stand made by the Puritans for divorce after the 
manner of the German Reformers, with permission for the 
offended person to remarry, instead of the separation a 
mensa et thoro, which continued to be maintained by the 
Church of England. 

The views of the Church of England differed in no way 
in regard to divorce affairs from those of the Church of 
Rome; for, as Fuller said, the secession of the former from 
the jurisdiction of the latter “touched not the least finger 
of Popery.” These views had already been set forth, for 
the first time in English, before Henry VIIPs marital 
troubles existed outside of what he was pleased to call his 
conscience; and as they remained the accepted principles 
of the Church of England, it is perhaps worth while to state 
them briefly once again as put forth in this book, the Co - 
mendacious of matrymony, by William Harrington, in 1528. 1 
For divorce, he says, there is but one cause: if before carnalis 
copula one of the married persons goes over to a heretical 
religion and will not return. Separation is admitted if 
one of the couple is adulterous. The impediments to mar¬ 
riage are given in full by Harrington, and here we find the 
same confusion that we noted above between those which 
impede marriage but do not annul it and those which render 
it absolutely null and void ab initio, some of the causes 
being included in both lists. 2 

1 It must be remembered that the interpretation of these principles 
was in the hands of the ecclesiastical courts, and on account of the cor¬ 
ruption therein, the application of them was by no means consistent. 

2 See above, p. 8 ff. and notes. Harrington’s book is the only one in 
English, either original or translation, that gives a list of impediments 
in anything like complete form. Although the most important book of 


THE ATTEMPTED RExDRM OF DIVORCE 


73 


In Protestant writings, we find less discussion of the annul¬ 
ment of marriage through impediments and more attention 
to the granting of divorce for adultery, desertion, and other 
causes. Bullinger, in his book The Christen state of Matri- 

all that I have seen, so far as definite information is concerned (giving 
more than all others put together), it seems to have been completely 
overlooked by all previous investigators, both legal and otherwise. The 
impediments, as here given, are worth quoting. They may be sum¬ 
marized: 

I. Impediments preventing marriage, but not annulling it if already 

made: 

1. Forbidden seasons of the year. 

2. Inhibition or prohibition by the church. 

3. Precontract. 

4. Vow of chastity, previously made by either party. 

5. Incest (i.e. adultery with any of betrothed’s relations within 
four degrees). 

6. Murder (committed in order to marry a certain person impedes 
such marriage). 

7. Ravishment of another’s wife. 

8. Christening one’s own child (impedes any second marriage). 

9. The murder of a priest. 

10. A solemn penance previously undergone. 

11. The woman’s being a nun. 

II. Impediments preventing marriage and annulling it if made: 

1. Wrong person (i.e. through mistaken identity, trickery, etc.) 

2. An existing marriage on the part of either. 

3. Solemn vow of chastity previously made. 

4. Cognition: 

a. Carnal (i.e. consanguinity or affinity within four degrees). 

b. Contract or carnal knowledge (preventing marriage with 

any one within four degrees of the other party involved). 

c. Spiritual (existing between persons joined by common par¬ 

ticipation in the baptism or confirmation of a child and also 
between the children of the same). 

5. Adultery (preventing subsequent marriage with party involved). 

6. Murder (as in above list). 


74 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


monye, confines his remarks on the impediments to a treat¬ 
ment of the degrees of consanguinity and affinity, and 
discusses divorce in an entirely different part of the work. 
Here the Reformation ideas are advocated in liberal form, 
divorce being allowed for whoredom, adultery, murder, and 
poisonings. The author further remarks, “They therfore 
that in no case wyll helpe the oppressed persone / ner in 
anye wyse permytte diuorce to be made / do euen as the 
Pharisies / whych by reason of [following] the commaud- 
ment of the Sabboth after the lettre / suffred men to be 
destroyed and to peryshe.” 1 

Bishop Hooper, the first real Puritan to express himself 
on the subject, in his Declaration of the Ten Command¬ 
ments, 1550, follows the German ideas in allowing divorce 
for adultery, and goes a step further than his English con¬ 
temporaries in putting the man and the woman on the same 
footing in all matrimonial matters. 2 In the latter attitude 
he was supported by the committee which drew up the 
Reformatio Legum and later by some of the more important 
Puritan writers, Perkins, Whately, and Milton for example. 
But at the time, there was no agreement on this topic, and 
Hooper’s opinions had evidently met with strong opposition 

7. Difference of religion (no marriage to be made with Jew, Turk, 
Saracen, or such other). 

8. The man’s being a priest. 

9. Impotency ) But if either of these develop after the marriage, 

10. Madness f “there is no remedy.” 

Interesting points to be noted about these lists are: (1) Impedi¬ 
ments 4, 5, and 6 of the first list occur again as 3, 46, and 6 of the sec¬ 
ond. (2) Precontract, which according to all other authorities annulled 
marriage (unless defuturo only), does not occur in the second list. Har¬ 
rington is certainly wrong here. (3) If 4, 5, and 6 of list two had been 
strictly observed during the following century, many of the plots of the 
drama of the time would have been knocked on the head at the outset. 

1 Bullinger, op. cit., f. lxxvii 6. 

2 Hooper, Early Writings , cap. X. 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 


75 


from his associates, since he takes particular pains to refute 
their arguments and justify his own position. His treatise, 
bring a part of his discussion of the seventh commandment, 
does not touch upon other causes for divorce, although it 
seems to suggest that such exist, and makes no mention 
of the impediments. Becon, writing in about 1562, says 
that Christians may put away their wives for no fault either 
of body or mind “adultery only excepted.” 1 He does not 
discuss the impediments at all, but attacks the English 
Church at length for not allowing remarriage after separa¬ 
tion. After quoting many of the church fathers on this 
point, he reviews carefully the opinions of the writers shortly 
before him, considering in some detail those of Erasmus, 
Luther, Bucer, Melancthon, Bullinger, Peter Martyr (“that 
precious pearl and maruelous marguerite”), Musculus, 
Calvin, Sacarius, and Brentinus, all of whom agree in allow¬ 
ing the innocent party to remarry. Puritan expression after 
this allows divorce (with remarriage of the innocent party) 
consistently for adultery, usually for desertion, and sometimes 
for the other causes originated by Luther. Henry Smith, 
in 1591, is perhaps the least lenient of them all, declaring 
bluntly, “The disease of marriage is adultery, and the medi¬ 
cine heerof is Diuorcement.” He continues: “If they might 
be seperated for discord, some would make a comodotie 
of strife; but nowe they are not best to be contentius, for 
this Law will holde their noses together, til wearines make 
them leaue strugling, like two spaniels which are coupled 
in a chain, at last they learne to goe together, because they 
may not goe a sunder.” 2 

Meanwhile the established church was holding fast to its 

1 Becon, Boke of Matrimony, Worckes, Pt. I, f. DCxxviii. 

2 Smith, A Preparative to Mariage, pp. 90-91. Smith is known 
to have inclined strongly towards orthodoxy, but he was opposed to at¬ 
tempting to force it upon others. 


76 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


old principles and practices under the favor of Elizabeth 
and the protection of the High Commission Court. Di¬ 
vorce with permission to remarry was still refused, although 
in actual practice little attention was paid to this prohibi¬ 
tion once a separation was obtained. 1 The church courts, 
nominally under the power of the statute law but in reality 
subservient only to the High Commission Court, which was 
controlled by Whitgift, continued to annul marriage on 
the ground of impediments, real or fictitious, and to grant 
separations a mensa et thoro, which were quickly put into 
practice by the plaintiffs as actual divorces. In this condi¬ 
tion of affairs, it became apparent to the Puritans that as 
long as the church courts existed in their present status, 
there could be no reform in the administration not only of 
divorce matters but of tythes, wills, and marriage contracts 
as well, all of which were being discussed equally with 
divorce. Thus it was that from this time on, the opposi¬ 
tion of the Puritans was directed more towards the funda¬ 
mental evil of ecclesiastical jurisdiction than towards any 
one of the interests that suffered therefrom. 

We have already seen that as early as the middle of the 
century prelatical episcopacy had been attacked by Hooper 
and Bucer, and that the Puritan ideas for church govern¬ 
ment were given final and definite form by the assembly 
of divines in 1576. 2 Here we find the first platform for 
divorce proceedings, in the provision that the local classes 
should decide “ doubts and difficulties touching the contract 
of marriage.” This seems to be the only definite statement 
— and it is far enough from being satisfactory — as to the 
intended jurisdiction in matrimonial affairs. 

In 1582, Robert Brown reopened the agitation in his 
book The life and manners of true Christians , by upholding 
the civil magistrates over the prelates; and by means of 
his writing and preaching started the Independents’ move- 

1 See below, pp. 83, 87, n. 1. 

2 See above, p. 29 ff. 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 


77 


ment against all ecclesiastical jurisdiction in matrimonial 
as well as other affairs. 1 Of the church under the control 
of the bishops, he says: 

“O, churche without eyes. For thy light is shutt vp at the Bish¬ 
ops Beneplacitu. Art thou the church of Christe, when thy starres 
be not in his hande, but the fystes of thy Bishoppes doo pull them 
downe from thee? Yet is this church of Englande the pillar and 
ground of trueth. For the Bishops overryde it. They are the trueth 
and it is the ground. It is the Beast and they are the Ryders. It 
stoupeth as an Asse for them to get vp. The whippe of their 
spirituall Courtes, and the Spurres of their lawes, and the Bridle 
of their power, do make it carie them.” 2 

In the third section of the book, Brown describes the proper 
government by church and state. “ Church gouenors are 
persons receyuing their authoritie & office of God, for the 
guiding of his people the church, receyued and called thereto, 
by due consent and agreement of the Church.” Continu¬ 
ing, he says, “Ciuill Magistrates are persons authorised of 
God, and receyued by the consent or choyse of the people, 
whether officers or subiectes, or by birth & succession also, 
to make and execute lawes by publick agreement, to rule 
the common wealth in all outwarde iustice, & to maintaine 
the right, welfare, & honour thereof, with outwarde power, 
bodily punishmens, and ciuill forcing of men.” The bishops, 

1 In the preface of Brown’s book, there is an extended and confused 
discussion of pastors, bishops, and magistrates, under the title Of 
Reformation without tarying for anie. In this, bishops and magistrates 
are classed together, as if both were opposed to reforms, but this is 
merely the result of Brown’s impatience at the failure of Parliament, 
fettered by the multiplicity of ecclesiastical affairs, to move as rapidly 
as h^ desired. The treatise is an excellent example of the confusion 
in popular minds of the authority of the parish priests, the civil magis¬ 
trates, and the bishops’ courts. 

2 Brown, An Order for Studying the Scriptures (contained in The life 
and manners), f. G3 b. 


78 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


whom he calls heathen, he says, “shift and thrust them¬ 
selves into Church gouernment as Antichristes . . . [and] 
. . . into ciuil gouernment as Tyrantes.” 1 

Whether Cartwright took his ideas on the judgment of 
matrimonial causes from Brown or held similar ones pre¬ 
viously, we cannot say; but in his Reply to the Answer, in 
c. 1573, 2 he puts Brown’s general principles concerning the 
power of the temporal magistrates as to marriage and 
divorce legislation into definite expression. He says: 

“Another thing is that in these courts (which they call spiritual) 
they take the knowledge of matters which are mere civil, thereby 
not only perverting the order which God hath appointed in severing 
the civil causes from the ecclesiastical, but justling also with the 
civil magistrate, and thrusting him from the jurisdiction which 
appertaineth unto him, as the causes of the contracts of marriage, 
of divorces, of wills and testaments, with divers other such like 
things. For, although it appertain to the church and govenors 
thereof to shew out of the word of God which is a lawful contract 
or just cause of divorce, and so forth, yet the judicial determination 
and definitive sentences of all these do appertain unto the civil 
magistrate.” 3 

Whitgift replied to this that there was no distinction between 
the civil and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction since both were 
executed by the Queen and emanated from her supreme 
power. This statement exhibits the true state of affairs, 
in which the church hid the scandal of its courts behind 
Elizabeth’s skirts and took refuge in the favor she showed 
Whitgift and the prelates. 

1 Brown, Life and manners , art. 117. 

2 In 1572, Cartwright wrote an Admonition to Parliament , in which he 
objected to some of the details of the marriage ceremony. Whitgift’s 
Answer to the Admonition led Cartwright to go into the subject more 
fully, as above. 

3 Cartwright, see Whitgift, Works, III, 267. 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 


79 


In the last decade of the century, there was any amount 
of pamphlet writing on the different religious questions of 
the day. Of all this, the Marprelate tracts have become 
the best known on account of their humorous and semi¬ 
literary character, which assured them a large number of 
readers; but there were also a great many less known books 
and tracts of the period by such men as Barrow, Perkins, 
Studley, Pye, Bradshaw, and others, who were opposed by 
an equal number on the bishops’ side, the most important 
of whom was the great Hooker. By this time, the debate 
between Puritanism and the established church embraced 
the three large subjects of cermonials, doctrines, and church 
government; so that among so many disputed principles 
and practices, we find little reference to our particular sub¬ 
ject. Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity is the most 
exhaustive work in the whole period, but in continuing the 
Whitgift-Cartwright controversy on church government 
and jurisdiction, the writer uses such general arguments 
and illustrations that we get no further definite information 
on actual practices. Divorce is not mentioned at all, it 
being a detail too small to be considered, according to the 
scheme of the book. 

There was, however, one important work which is val¬ 
uable in giving concrete expression to much that was in the 
air. This is the Christian Oeconomie of William Perkins, a 
writer mentioned by Milton in his first divorce tract. The 
book was originally written in Latin in 1590 and was trans¬ 
lated into English by Thomas Pickering in 1609. On the 
question of the nullification of marriage through some pre¬ 
viously existing impediment, Perkins gives us more informa¬ 
tion than does any other Puritan writer. It is evident from 
what he says that the usual impediments were still in opera¬ 
tion, and, in theory at least, were not opposed by the Re¬ 
formed churches. In regard to divorce, he disagrees with 


80 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


the old Catholic principle that allowed it in the case of a 
man’s entering holy orders, 1 but on the other hand, upholds 
in their broadest form the general Puritan grounds for grant¬ 
ing it. These may be divided into four classes: (1) deser¬ 
tion, “when one of the married folkes, vpon a wilfull, and 
obstinate mind of their owne head, departeth from the other, 
without a iust, and necessary cause”; (2) malicious deal¬ 
ing, “when dwelling together, they require of each other 
intolerable conditions”; (3) long absence, opinions differ¬ 
ing as to the extent of time; (4) adultery. 2 In all cases, 
according to Perkins, there should be no discrimination of 
sex. “Now in requiring of a diuorce,” he says, “there is 
an equall right and power in both parties, so as the woman 
may require it as well as the man. . . . The reason is, 
because they are equally bound each to other, . . . prouided 
alwaie, that the man is to maintaine his superioritie, and 
the woman to obserue that modes tie which beseemeth her 
towards the man.” 3 In regard to the relations of church and 
state in causes matrimonial, it seems as if either authority 
could use disciplinary measures, that the church granted 
divorce, and that either church or magistrate might grant 
permission to remarry; but the discussion of these points 
is not full enough to show clearly either the practices of the 
day or the writer’s views upon them. 4 

For a treatment of the Puritan attitude of this time in 

1 This was the logical outcome of the Puritan principle that a min¬ 
ister was in no way forbidden to marry, which was directly opposed to 
the orthodox doctrine. 

2 Perkins, op. tit., p. 101 ff. 

3 Ibid., p. 120. 

4 After discussing the case of desertion (ibid., p. 105), he says: 
After publike and solemne declaration made, the Minister vpon such 

desertion, may pronounce the mariage to be dissolued.” 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 


81 


regard to church and state rights, we may turn to William 
Bradshaw’s English Puritanisme, published in 1605. What 
he says here needs no comment. I quote only the most 
significant passages: 

“All Ecclesiasticall actions invented & deuised by man, are 
vtterlie to bee excluded out of the exercises of religion.” 

“No Pastor ought to exercise or accept any Civill publique 
Iurisdictio & authorise, but ought to be wholly imployed in spirit- 
uall Offices & duties . . . And that those Civill Magistrats 
weake their owne Supremacy that shall suffer any Ecclesiasticall 
Pastor to exercise any civill Iurisdictio within their Realmes, 
Dominios, or Seigniories.” 

“The spirituall keyes of the Church ... are not to be put to 
this vse, to lock vp the Crownes, Swords or Scepters, of Princes & 
ciuill States, or the ciuill Rightes prerogatiues and immvnities, 
of ciuill subiects in the things of this Life.” 

“The Civill Magistrate . . . hath and ought to haue Supreae 
power over all the Churches within his Dominions, in all causes 
whatsoever.” 1 

On the smaller question of divorce itself, the opposing 
parties came to blows, so to speak, in the last decade of the 
century. Since the Puritans admitted the validity of the 
old impediments, with certain modifications, the question 
of marriage after divorce — that is whether the separation 
should be merely a mensa et thoro or divorce in the modern 
sense of the term — now became the chief ground of debate. 
The ensuing controversy found expression in the more 
general marriage books, as already mentioned, and in ser¬ 
mons, as is shown by those of Bunny and Dove; 2 but does 

1 Bradshaw, op. tit., pp. 1, 17, 25, 32, respectively. A full synopsis 
of this book is given in Neal, II, 55 ff. 

2 Bunny, in the preface to Of Divorce, written in 1595, mentions 
three sermons in which he opposed remarriage after divorce. Dove, 
in a sermon preached at St. Paul’s Cross in 1601 and published the 
same year under the title Of Divorcement, takes a similar attitude. 


82 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


not seem to have been a field for special writing in England, 
despite the books of Bucer and Beza, 1 until Cardinal Bel- 
larmino of Capua reopened the subject by a Latin pamphlet 
upholding the old Catholic attitude. 2 In 1597, John Rai- 
nolds, in his Defense of the Reformed Churches , etc., replied in 
English both to Bellarmino’s treatise and to “an English 
pamphlet of nameless author.” This work was not pub¬ 
lished, however, until 1609, after the writer’s death, because 
the Archbishop of Canterbury “thought it not meet to be 
printed, as containing dangerous doctrine, and breeding 
sundrie inconveniences, if any weary of wife or husband 
might, by committing adulterie procure freedome of mary- 
ing whom they list.” 3 The “nameless author” mentioned 
by Rainolds may have been John Howson, who published 
a “third treatise” in 1602, entitled Uxore dismissa propter 
Fornicationem aliam non licet superinducere. 4 This was 
answered by Thomas Pye first in English and then in Latin 
in 1603. 5 Howson’s treatise was republished in 1606 to¬ 
gether with an anonymous Tractatus modestus et Christianus 
im‘defense of Howson contra reprehensiones T. Pyi . 6 In 

1 Bucer, De Regno Christi, 1557; Beza, Tractatio de repudiis et divor- 
tiis, 1569. 

2 I have not been able to locate this tract nor to discover any further 
information concerning it. It is merely mentioned by Rainolds. 

3 From the letter to Pye (see below, n. 6). 

4 On the other hand, were Howson the “nameless author,” we 

should expect Ramons’ tract to have been written in Latin, since 
Howson’s was, instead of in English. 

6 This tract by Pye does not seem to be extant in either version. 
Watt mentions an Epistola ad Jo. Howsonum contra novum ejus Dog¬ 
ma de Divortiis Judaeorum, which may be the one in question, but I 
have not been able to locate it. 

6 The edition of 1606, entitled Uxore dismissa, etc., contains, beside 
the two treatises mentioned, a letter from Rainolds to Pye, which is 
valuable for its information concerning dates etc., and also one from 
Gentilis to Howson, in Latin, in which the writer gives his judgment 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 


83 


1610, Edmund Bunny published his Of Divorce, etc., written 
in 1595, in which he supports the opposition of the estab¬ 
lished church to remarriage. In the “ Advertisement to 
the Reader,” Bunny gives some interesting sidelights on the 
times. Of the controversy in hand, he says that it was one 
“as wherein divers of great learning have already dealt,” 
but he does not mention any by name. He says also that 
the practice of divorce and remarriage was by no means 
unusual. A few years before the writing of the treatise, 
there had been “of one family (but indeed, one of the great¬ 
est in those parts) or therevnto appertaining, about fowre 
several persons, and those of some note besides, who had 
the so gotten divorce, & were married againe. And besides 
those (who, it may be, had else where mo fellowes also, 
than that heady course any waie deserved) an other there 
was of more speciall reckoning tha they, who so got divorce 
against his wife also, & married an other.” 1 Speaking of 
a treatise on the opposite side of the question, he says: 
“True it is, that many of the learned haue beene, and yet 
are, of that opinion, & accordingly haue interpreted, and 
yet doe, such Scriptures as they haue conceived to apper¬ 
tain therevnto: but it is as true withal, that as many of 
the learned againe, if not far mo, haue beene, and are, of 
other opinion, and haue otherwise vnderstoode, & yet doe, 
those Scriptures aforesaid.” 2 

It is not worth while to go into the arguments produced 
by the opponents in this controversy to support their re¬ 
spective beliefs. The basis of contention, as one sees from 
Bunny’s remarks, was, as usual, Scriptural interpretation 
and patriarchal authority. The subheading of Rainolds’ 

of Pye’s book. In the note to the reader preceding this letter, there 
is mentioned a reply to Pye by Dove, entitled Doctoris Pyi impium dog - 
ma. This also seems to be non-extant. 

1 Bunny, op. cit., “Advertisement,” If 2. 

2 Ibid., H 9. 


84 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


treatise against Bellarmino, if the opponent’s name were 
changed to suit each occasion, represents the substance of 
the argument in all cases: “how he depraveth Scriptures, 
misalleageth fathers, and abuseth reasons, to the pervert¬ 
ing of the truth of God and poisoning of his Churche with 
errour.” The attention drawn to the question of remar¬ 
riage by this controversy resulted, in 1603, in the passage 
of a new canon, to the effect that “parties shall not marry 
during the lifetime of both and parties must give good and 
sufficient security that they will not break this agreement.” 1 
This canon, however, had little or no effect in preventing 
remarriage, for as Godolphin points out, by forfeiting the 
security, one satisfied the law and was free to do what he 
liked. 2 

III. The Final Deadlock 

At this point, about 1610, and upon these propositions, — 
the general one of church government and the particular 
one of divorce in its various aspects — the Puritan reformers 
and the bishops of the established church stood face to face, 
hurling ineffective arguments back and forth until the fall 
of Laud in 1641. During this time, the contention was 
more for power than for principles, as both sides realized 
that the establishment of the latter depended upon the 
possession of the former. While Laud controlled the courts 
and exercised a censorship over the press, there was little 
printed expression of opinion; but from the close of his 
power until Parliament itself censored the press in 1643, 
controversy ran wild. 3 I have before me one pile of books 
labeled “Prynne and Opponents,” another “Saltmarsh vs. 
Ley, etc.,” and another “Smectymuun Controversy,” and 

1 Canon 107. 

a See below, p. 87, n. 1. 

a Of course, there was unlicensed printing before and after this 
period of two years, but not very much; nor were the publications so 
definitely upon controverted topics. 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 


85 


I could lay my hands on many more; but all these must 
be passed over with the comment that they simply continue 
the debate of civil and ecclesiastical authority and have very 
little to say on the subject we are following. 1 In 1642, 
there was passed an act “for the utter abolishing and taking 
away of all archbishops, bishops, their chancellors, com¬ 
missaries . . . together with their names, titles, jurisdic¬ 
tions, offices, and functions, and the having or using of 
any jurisdiction or power.” This act ended, officially at 
least, the authority of the bishops until the Restoration. 

For the final opposing opinions and the actual practice 
of divorce in this period, we must refer once more to the 
domestic books. Here we find that there is no change on 
the part of the established church, but that the Puritans 
have gone even further than previously from the old Catholic 
ideas, in narrowing the grounds for the nullification of mar¬ 
riage, and have departed from the more liberal principles 
of the German Reformation, by narrowing the grounds 
for divorce. For the latter, they admit only adultery and 
desertion, and for nullification, only the Levitical degrees 
of relationship. The stand in regard to nullification was 
due, perhaps, to the fact that the Star Chamber in 1601 had 
reestablished the law of 32 Hen. VIII, ca. 38, by which the 
impediments to marriage were limited to those expressed 
in “God’s law.” 2 

1 The reader should not get the impression that church govern¬ 
ment and matrimonial jurisdiction were equally the leading issues of 
the day. By 1642, church government was probably the chief subject 
in the field of controversy; next to this came questions of doctrine. 
Marriage and divorce were minor points in the discussion of the former 
of these topics; and one might read far into the writing of the time with¬ 
out finding mention of either, as is evidenced by the fact that many of 
the books and pamphlets discussed above have not been previously 
examined. 

* See above, p. 62. 


86 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


We have already examined, at least briefly, the controversy 
waged over the question of divorce versus separation. Our 
more general conduct books continue the same arguments, 
neither side yielding ground. The second edition of 
Whately’s Bride-bush , in 1623, seems to be the last Puritan 
book before the censorship of the press to uphold these 
principles in full. 1 Here, in addition to the subject of 
adultery, the two recognized forms of desertion — actual 
departure from the home and refusal of the marriage right — 
are discussed at some length, and divorce with remarriage 
is allowed in either case, no distinction in regard to sex 
being made. 2 Although the Puritans narrowed the grounds 
for the nullification of marriage, the established church 
clung to the Catholic practices. Milton says on this point: 
“It [marriage] was thought so sacramental that no adultery 
or desertion could dissolve it; and this is the sense of the 
canon courts in England to this day, but in no other re¬ 
formed church”; again, “Divorce for adultery and deser¬ 
tion, as all churches agree but England, not only separates, 
but nullifies, and extinguishes the relation itself of matri¬ 
mony”; and again, “We know it [marriage] dissoluable for 
adultery and for desertion by the verdict of all reformed 
churches.” 3 The Answer to the Doctrine and Discipline, 
citing Coke as authority, gives for the nullification of 
marriage causa precontracts, causa frigitatis or impotentiae , 4 
and causa minoris aetatis or impubertatis. 5 Separation a 

1 Gouge’s Domestical Duties, c. 1626, allows divorce for adultery and 
for desertion due to difference of religious beliefs, but it does not treat 
either very fully. 

2 Whately, op. dt., chaps. 1 and 2. 

3 Milton, Prose Works, I, 344, and II, 133, 141, respectively. 

4 Frigidity and impotency are synonymous terms as here used. 
It was this that Milton referred to as “natural frigidity.” 

6 Op. dt., p. 2 ff. The Levitical degrees seem to be taken for granted. 
Although the causes here cited were doubtless those most often plead, 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 


87 


mensa et thoro continued to be granted by the established 
church for certain causes, 1 and in the case of the desertion 
of a Christian husband by a heretical wife, remarriage was 
allowed. Thomas Ridley, writing in 1607, says, “The causes 
whereupon Divorces grow, are Adultery, deadly hatred one 
toward an other, intolerable cruelty, neemesse of kindred 
and affinitie in degrees forbidden, impotencie on the one 
side or the other.’ 7 2 Godolphin, writing in 1678, exhibits 
practically the same state of affairs, and adds, “Touching 
the kinds and effects of Divorce, whether Divorce a vinculo 
Matrimonii or separation a Mensa & Thori, with the causes 
thereof; the Divines and Lawyers are of different Opinions, 
and each of these divided among themselves.” 3 

Opposed to this confusion of impediments, separation, 
divorce, and whatnot, as administered or misadministered, 
by the established church courts, we may set the clear-cut 

it is evident from legal treatises of the time that all the earlier ones were 
still in operation. 

1 This separation was the door of opportunity to all who wished 
to obtain an actual divorce, as the terms of it failed to prevent re¬ 
marriage. The canons of 1603 attempted to put a stop to its abuse by 
requiring security against remarriage, but this did not help matters. 
Godolphin, in his Repertorium Canonicum, p. 495, gives the foFowing 
legal opinion on the point: “By enjoyning such security to be given, 
and such Bonds to be taken, This seems to be a Penal Canon, viz. 
pecuniarily Penal; whoever therefore breaks the Law incurrs the 
penalty, and whoever suffers the penalty, doth answer and satisfie the 
Law, which before he had infring’d.” 

2 Ridley, A Viewe of Civile and Ecclesiasticall Law, p. 11. Ridley 
makes no attempt to distinguish between the different kinds of divorce, 
and for this reason his information is of little help to us. On p. 72, 
he includes “by consent” among the means of obtaining a divorce. 
I have found “mutual consent” mentioned in several books; it is usu¬ 
ally spoken of as not a proper cause for divorce, which together with 
Ridley’s statement seems to indicate that divorce of some kind was 
sometimes obtained on this ground. 

3 Godolphin, Repertorium Canonicum, p. 501. 


88 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


and definite statements of the Puritan divines as drawn 
up by their assembly in c. 1643 and published in 1651: 

“Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity 
or affinity forbidden in the word, nor can such incestuous marriages 
ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties. . . . 

“Adultery, or fornication being committed after a contract 
being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent 
party to dissolve the contract; in the case of adultery after marriage, 
it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the 
divorce, to marry another as if the offending party was dead. 

“Nothing but adultery or such wilful desertion as can no way be 
remedied, by the Church or Civil Magistrate, is cause sufficient of 
dissolving the bond of marriage, wherein a publike, and orderly 
course of proceeding, is to be observed, and the persons concerned 
in it not left to their own wills, and discretion in their own case ” 1 

But aside from books of a strictly domestic nature, there 
were many others which treated of marriage, woman, and 
family life from every angle and in every style. These 
were popular books, too, both those which were somewhat 
literary and amusing and those which were purely utilitarian 
and dry. Moreover, debates were still raging, both in and 
out of print, on practically every question that the previous 
century had raised. In our particular field, we find the 
pros and cons of remarriage after divorce, the marriage of 
the clergy, marriages made without the parents’ consent, 
the legal status of children in cases of divorced parents, 
and even “whether a man may beat his wife.” If we add 
to the books here suggested all those of purely literary 
and religious character, as well as the many marriage ser¬ 
mons, by men like Hall, Gataker, Whately, and Donne, 
we may get some idea of the quagmire in which human 
nature, imprisoned by text, dogma, and precedent, yet 
ever and anon breaking forth into license and sin, was strug- 

1 The Late Assembly of Divines Confession of Faith , p. 263. 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 


89 


gling for life and the pursuit of happiness. “When I remem¬ 
ber,says Milton, “the little that our Saviour could prevail 
about this doctrine of charity against the crabbed textuists 
of his time, I make no wonder, but rest confident, that whoso 
prefers either matrimony or other ordinance before the good 
of man and the plain exegence of charity, let him profess 
papist, or protestant, or what he will, he is no better than 
a pharisee and understands not the gospell.” 1 

As Milton says, the pamphleteers and writers of domestic 
books who touch upon the subject of matrimony, with a 
few exceptions, argue as if they were trying to settle a hypo¬ 
thetical question rather than to remedy a burning evil 
in their own midst. But at the time that the assembly of 
divines was about to struggle with the problem, two writers, 
from different walks of life and from opposing sects, entered 
the field to discuss the situation as it actually existed and 
from the point of view of living needs instead of that of 
Hebrew history and Roman Catholic interpretation of the 
Scriptures. 2 These were Daniel Rogers, an orthodox divine, 

1 Milton, Prose Works , I, 340. 

2 One of the most important books of the time, De Jure naturali 
et Gentium, from the pen of the learned John Selden, written in Latin 
with frequent quotations from Greek, Hebrew, Assyrian, and other lan¬ 
guages, and mentioned by Milton in his first divorce tract, can hardly 
be included among our books on divorce, because, as the title indicates, 
it is concerned not with English conditions but with primitive cus¬ 
toms and ancient laws. These do, to a certain extent, uphold Milton’s 
views, as he fervently asserts; but the argument “as it was in the 
beginning, is now, and ever shall be” is scarcely tenable. On account 
of the importance of the book, I quote the most important passage on 
the subject of divorce: 

“Nequi enim separari aut dividi nequibant conjuges , seu Matrimonium 
dirimi, nisi ex singulari aliqua legis permissione, seu repudii causa; 
neque communis consensus (quo ex veteri Jure Caesareo distrahi Matri- 
monia sdmus) necessarius erat, ut dirimiretur. Neque individua did 
potuit vitae consuetudo quae aequo Jure a marito pluribus communica - 


90 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


and John Milton, an Independent layman. The similarity 
of their views seems to be mere coincidence, but the causes 
of it were identical — existing conditions. Rogers in his 
domestic book Matrimoniall Honovr, in 1642, appealed to 
human nature in general by portraying the honor and beauty 
of the marriage state as it should exist; Milton in his Doc¬ 
trine and Discipline of Divorce , in 1643, appealed to Parlia¬ 
ment and the assembly in particular by portraying the evils 
and hideousness of marriage as it too often did exist. 

Of the former, we may stop here only for a quotation, 
in which we may see Milton’s ideas of compatibility of mind 
in husband and wife, expressed from a different point of 
view, in a chapter on “Consent.” 

“Love being the noble groundworke, this [consent] the sweet 
building upon the former foundation: both making up marriage, 
to grow to an happy frame and building, which who so behold, 
can no other judge, but that those parties are well met, and dwell 
commodiously. . . . 

“This then is the point, that both married persons ought studi¬ 
ously to maintaine this grace of mutuall consent, as a maine peece 
of that, which must maintaine the honour of their marriage. . . . 

batur. Quemadmodum vero ex veteri Jure Caesareo distrahabantur Matri- 
monia, alia quidem consentiente utraque parte, pactis causam, sicut 
utriqui (ut verba sunt Justinianii ) placuerit, gubernantibus, alia vero 
per occasionem rationabilem quae etiam Bona gratia vocabantur, alia citra 
omnem causam, alia quoque cum causa rationabili (cui libertati sanctiones 
tarn Caesareae etiam quam Pontificiae haud parum derogarunt ) ita ex 
Jure Naturali ab ipsis rerum primordiis communi citra ullam omnino 
causam ea distrahi fas fuisse volunt Magistri. Idque pro libitu tarn uxoris 
quam viri, quod etiam, ex praescriptis aliquot causis, Jure Caesareo olim 
permissum est. Adeo ut pactum matrimoniale heic non aliud haberetur 
quam Sociorum contractus, qui eo usque stabilis manet dum in eodem 
consensu utrinque per server atur, & renunciante societati alterutro solvitur. 
Ita, sive viro sive uxore matrimonio renuntiante, solutum aiunt fuisse 
contractum, velut divortio plane legitimo.” Op. cit., Lib. V, cap. vii, 
p. 567. 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 


91 


“Oh, thou sweet amiablenesse and concord, what may not be 
said of thee? Thou art the offspring of God, the fruite of Redemp¬ 
tion, the breath of the spirit: Thou art the compound of contraries, 
the harmony of discords, the order of Creation, the soule of the 
world: without which, the vast body thereof would soone dissolve 
it selve by her owne burden, as wearisome to it selfe, and fall in 
sunder by peacemeale from each other.” 1 

So far Rogers is speaking in general, but further on he be¬ 
comes more particular and strikes upon the very element 
which Milton emphasizes most of all. 

“This consent must be in the speech and language of them 
both: Its true generally, but in this point specially, That speech 
is the discoverer of the mind: Looke what the abundance of the 
heart is, that will vent it selfe at the mouth. . . . Yea, the speech 
of each to other should bee (without flattery) as the glasse, to be¬ 
hold each other in. As face answers to face in the water, so doth 
man accomodate himselfe to his friend (saith Salomon), how much 
more the husband and wife to each other? They should even 
resemble each others frame and temper (in the Lord) with all 
ingenuity. As the beames do represent the Sun, in her heat and 
light: so should the sweet carriage of the wife, argue the body 
which gives her influence, even her husbands virtues.” 2 

This is far prettier and more dignified than Milton’s treat¬ 
ment of the same subject, though it lacks the force of the 
latter’s sound and fury. But Rogers goes no further; he 
merely exhibits and eulogizes the qualities which go to make 
a successful marriage and leaves the subject there. Of 
divorce he has nothing to say. 

Milton chose the psychological moment to hurl his “ doc¬ 
trine of freedom” in divorce matters at the head, or heads, 
of the English nation, which was fairly wallowing in the 
slough of despond over the questions of church, state, and 
personal liberty. The official overthrow of the bishops took 

1 Rogers, op. cit., p. 184 ff. 

2 Ibid., p. 189. 


92 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


place in 1642, but the bill effecting it did not take the power 
of jurisdiction from the church, and the bishops did not 
lose the name and dignity of office until 1646. “In this 
interval,” says Neal, “there was properly no established 
form of government, the clergy being permitted ... to 
govern their parishes according to their discretion.” 1 On 
June 12, 1643, the famous assembly was appointed for the 
consideration “of all things necessary for the peace and 
government of the church.” This assembly convened on 
July 1, and within a month of this date, Milton’s tract 
The Doctrine and Discipline and Divorce appeared. 2 Before 
the assembly had time to get more than well started, Milton 
brought out a second edition of the tract dedicated “to the 
Parliament with the Assembly.” 3 The dedication con¬ 
tains a strong appeal to those in power to take some action 
to remedy the marital evils of the time. 

“You it concerns chiefly, worthies of parliament! on whom as on 
our deliverers, all our grievances and cares, by merit of your emi¬ 
nence and fortitude, are divolved. ... Ye have, now, doubtless, 
by the favour and appointment of God, ye have now in your hands 
a great and populous nation to reform; from what corruption, 
what blindness in religion, ye know well; in what a degenerate and 

1 Neal, II, 503. 

2 Thomason’s date of Aug. 1, 1643, seems to be now pretty gener¬ 
ally accepted, despite Philips’ statement that the tract was first con¬ 
ceived about Michelmas of that year. In Appendix B, below, I discuss 
this matter of date in full. In the same place, I attempt to overthrow 
Philips’ further statement, and all later theories built upon it, that the 
tract was written because Milton himself wished to obtain a divorce 
from his wife. 

3 The second edition appeared [Feb. 2], 1644. It differs greatly in 
size and general make-up from the first. It is one-third longer, is divided 
into books and chapters, contains references to authorities not men¬ 
tioned before, and is prefaced by the dedication mentioned above. 
My remarks, however, except where noted, apply to both editions. 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 93 

fallen spirit from the apprehension of native liberty, and true 
manliness, I am sure ye find; with what unbounded license rushing 
to whoredoms and adulteries, needs not long inquiry.” 1 

Milton’s tract is too well known to need any detailed 
analysis here, but as several of the issues of the period cul¬ 
minated in it, it is necessary to look for a moment at the 
more important doctrines advocated. Although Perkins 
is the only previous writer mentioned in the first edition 
of the tract, it is certain that Milton was familiar with the 
general arguments on all sides of the question and with 
the conditions which led to the stagnant and corrupt state 
of marital society and jurisdiction thereupon. The Doc¬ 
trine and Discipline was and still is considered revolutionary; 
but the truth is that it does not contain a single point which 
was not either previously advocated or actually in practice, 
although certain principles are emphasized more than they 
had been before. The one usually taken as Milton’s chief 
contribution to the controversy is the famous proposition 
that “indisposition, unfitness, or contrariety of mind, arising 
ih nature unchangeable, hindering and ever likely to hinder 
the main benefits of conjugal society, which are happiness 
and peace,” should be recognized as a just and sufficient 
cause for divorce. That this principle was already current 
is shown by Erasmus’ mention of U disidium animorum” 
among the impediments to marriage; 2 by the gloss made 
by the Reform divines on Deut. 24, 1, in their Annotations 
of the Books of the Old and New Testament, where it is stated 
that to the usual causes of divorce “are added by some, 
barrennesse, madnesse, stubbornnesse, reproachfull insolence 
toward her husband, which is an uncleannesse of the minde, 
or any other thing which dispose him rather to loath them 

1 Milton, Prose Works , I, 336. 

2 See above, p. 9, n. 2. 


94 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


than to love her; ” 1 and by the comments of Perkins and 
Ridley already quoted. 2 There can be no doubt, however, 
that such “uncleanness of the mind” had never before been 
boldly proclaimed. Nevertheless, as a ground for divorce, it 
was but a logical result of the Puritan attitude towards mar¬ 
riage, according to which matrimony was instituted for the 
mutual blessing and benefit of husband and wife instead of for 
the procreation of children and the avoidance of sin, as the 
older writers upheld. 3 This idea of marriage as a conjugal so¬ 
ciety of happiness and peace rather than a “prescribed satis¬ 
faction for irrational heat,” to use Milton’s phrase, is indeed 
the basis of the whole treatise, and every argument, whether 
in support of the new doctrine or in opposition to the old, 
takes its source from this conception. The Puritan writers 
before Milton had tended towards emphasizing mental and 
spiritual satisfaction in marriage rather than mere physical, 
but they failed to see the fallacy of their position in allowing 
divorce for only adultery and desertion. This Milton 
points out. “Among Christian writers touching matri¬ 
mony,” he says, “there be three chief ends thereof agreed 
on: godly society, next civil, and thirdly, that of the mar¬ 
riage-bed. Of these the first in name be the highest and 
most excellent, no baptized man can deny; . . . but he 
who affirms adultery to be the highest breach, affirms the 
bed to be the highest of marriage, which is in truth a gross 
and boorish opinion, how common soever.” 4 

1 This work is entered in the Stationers’ Register Oct. 31, 1643. 
This is, of course, after the publication of Milton’s tract, but it cannot 
be supposed that such a voluminous work — two large tomes — could 
have been accomplished in the time between the two dates. There 
is a possibility that the note may have been inserted in consequence 
of Milton’s argument, but this is unlikely, especially as the authors 
of the Annotations had no sympathy with his religious principles. 

2 See above, pp. 80, 87. 

3 For a full discussion of this difference in attitude towards mar¬ 
riage, see below, p. 119 ff. 

4 Milton, Prose Works , I, 367. 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 


95 


Since the practices of church and state were, as I have 
shown, in a complete muddle in regard to divorce jurisdic¬ 
tion, Milton wastes no time in attacking existing condi¬ 
tions, but instead uses their contradictions and corruptions 
as a foil for the new doctrine he has to advance. In this 
way they are mentioned continually, — no distinction 
being made between those of the old Catholic canons and 
those of the recent Puritan agitation — but they are always 
subordinated to the main issue of the tract, which is con¬ 
structive rather than destructive. Milton’s whole attitude 
towards the canon law is shown in the heading of his third 
chapter, “The ignorance and iniquity of the Canon Law, 
providing for the right of the body in marriage, but nothing 
for the wrongs and grievances of the mind.” Again, of the 
evil and confusion of the time in affairs matrimonial, he 
says, “All of which we can refer justly to no other cause but 
canon law and her adherents.” Of the old separation a 
mensa et thoro, he remarks in passing, “And this I observe 
that our divines do generally condemn separation of bed 
and board, without the liberty of second choice.” 1 Di¬ 
vorce for “spiritual adultery,” “which is so much contro¬ 
verted,” he admits, as of course he would have to for the 
sake of consistency at least. Divorce for plotting by one 
party against the life of the other, to which “the canon law 
and divines consent,” he admits also. In regard to the im¬ 
pediments annulling marriage, he expresses himself only to 
oppose the emphasis laid by canon law upon sexual im- 
potency. 

Except in insisting upon divorce for incompatibility of tem¬ 
per, to apply the modern phrase, Milton does not go beyond 
the views of the more radical Puritan writers in any respect. 
As we have already seen, the two chief points where these 
differed from orthodox doctrine, were the equality of man 

1 Milton, Prose Works, II, 54. 


96 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


and woman in divorce suits, which had been advocated by 
the more liberal thinkers ever since the Reformation, and the 
practice of self-divorce, which I have been at some pains to 
show continued to be used to date among the Independents. 
On the first of these points, Milton goes into neither detail 
nor argument, but the subtitle of his tract, describing it as 
restoring divorce “to the good of both sexes,” shows clearly 
that he meant to place husband and wife upon the same 
looting before the law, although he writes entirely from the 
man's point of view. 1 Indeed, this was one of the objec¬ 
tions raised against the tract by the anonymous answer, 
in which the reader is instructed to take notice “that all 
his Arguments, to prove a man may put away his wife for 
disagreement of minde or disposition, except it be his Argu¬ 
ment from Deu. 24. 1. they prove as effectually, that the Wife 
may sue a Divorce from her Husband upon the same 
grounds.” 2 The second point, that of private divorce, is 
given considerable attention towards the end of the tract. 
It was quite evident to Milton, as it must be to us, that the 
logical outcome of the long dispute between church and 
state rights and of the abolition of the ecclesiastical courts, 
was the restoration of jurisdiction in marital affairs to the 
civil authority. But, although the Independents and other 

1 Nevertheless, Milton runs into inconsistencies on the subject of 
women’s rights in divorce matters. Despite the fact that in general 
he upholds the Puritan doctrine of equal rights for both sexes, he evi¬ 
dently discriminates against the wife in saying that “the absolute 
and final hindering of divorce cannot belong to any civil or earthly 
power, against the will and consent of both parties, or of the husband 
alone.” (Prose Works, II, 53.) On the other hand, in translating 
Bucer’s book, he passes over Chapter XXXIV, entitled “That it is 
lawful for a wife to leave an adulterer” with the remark that “this is 
generally granted, and therefore excuses me the writing out.” But 
certainly his proposed private divorce either by consent of both parties 
or by that of the husband alone, discriminates against the wife. 

2 Answer to the Doctrine and Discipline, p. 13. 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 97 

non-conformists favored such restoration of power to the 
civil courts in the case of most of the matters involved, they 
differed from their more orthodox brethren in persistently 
upholding that marriage and everything pertaining thereto 
was entirely a personal and private affair, with which neither 
church nor state had anything to do except to witness 
the event. We have already noted Milton’s statement in 
regard to marriage. 1 His platform for divorce is quite con¬ 
sistent with this in its opposition to both civil and eccle¬ 
siastical jurisdiction. In concluding his argument on this 
point, he says, “ Shall then the disposal of that power return 
again to the master of family? Wherefore not, since God 
there put it, and the presumptuous Canon there bereft it? 
This only must be provided, that the ancient manner be 
observed in the presence of the minister and other grave 
selected Elders.” 2 

With The Doctrine and Discipline, the long controversy 
culminated. The advanced doctrines of the most advanced 
thinker of the time, as herein expressed, were received, on 
the whole, as the crabbed textuists and the carnally minded 
people of that day would naturally be expected to receive 
them, the attitude of the former being as exasperating as 
that of the latter is disgusting. Although Milton says that 
the tract was “held by some of the best among reformed 
writers [to be] without scandal or refutement, though now 
thought new and dangerous by some of our Gnostics,” 
and that others thought it had “of reason in it to a suffi¬ 
ciency,” 3 there can be no doubt that the general church¬ 
going public was both scandalized and incensed, at least 
by the doctrine or divorce for “indisposition, unfitness, 
or contrariety of mind.” The tract was answered by an 

1 See above, p. 60. 

2 Milton, Prose Works, II, 61. 

3 Ibid., II, 112, 115. 


98 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


anonymous writer from the orthodox standpoint in 1644, 1 2 
was stigmatized in a sermon before Pariiament as wicked 
and deserving to be burnt, and was condemned, along with 
certain others, by Featley as advocating “most damnable 
doctrines.’ 7 2 The most authoritative opinion expressed 
against it was that subscribed to and published, in 1647, by 
certain ministers of London under the title of A Testimony 
to the Truth of Jesus Christ, in which they declare their “de¬ 
testation and abhorence” of Milton’s divorce for “indis¬ 
position, unfitness, or contrariety of mind.” 3 It may be 
worthy of mention that in this tract neither his principle 
of equal rights for man and woman nor his advocacy of 
private divorce is criticized, and a marginal note directs 
the reader to “peruse the whole book.” 

Meanwhile Milton had come to his own defense by trans¬ 
lating passages from the second book of Bucer’s De Regno 
Christi in 1644, 4 which expressed the extreme liberal views 
of the German Reformers, but did not touch upon the sub¬ 
ject of private divorce or go quite far enough generally to 
justify Milton altogether in saying, “I hope this will excuse 
me with the mere Englishman to be a forger of new and 
loose opinions.” In the following year, he published his 
Tetrachordon, in which he follows the suggestion of some of 
his friendly critics and discusses at length the “four chief 
places in Scripture concerning nullities in marriage.” In 

1 An Answer to a Book , Intituled, The Doctrine and Discipline of 
Divorce. This Answer is directed against the first edition of Milton’s 
tract only, and replies merely to the first part of that. The principle of 
private divorce is therefore not mentioned. 

2 Featley, The Dippers dipt, f. B2 b. 

3 Op. cit., p. 19. In the same paragraph, the ministers condemn also 
the doctrine expressed in Little Nonsuch, a slight and none too serious 
tract, anonymously published in 1646, which advocated the marriage 
of kin, after the example of the first people upon earth. 

4 Under the title of The Judgment of Martin Bucer, etc. 


THE ATTEMPTED REFORM OF DIVORCE 


99 


this tract he takes every opportunity to reiterate and amplify 
the principles of his Doctrine and Discipline for divorce on 
mental rather than physical grounds. In the same year, 
1645, he replied to the “nameless author” above mentioned, 
in a short tract called Colasteron, but this work adds nothing 
of interest to the controversy. 

What were the actual conditions of divorce legislation and 
jurisdiction from this time to the Restoration, it is impos¬ 
sible to determine accurately. The writer of the Answer 
to Milton’s tract, quoting Coke as authority, defines divorce 
as a “sentence pronounced by an Ecclesiasticall Judge, 
whereby a man and woman formerly married, are separated 
or parted”; 1 but as already noted, it does not seem pos¬ 
sible that the church or any of its officers could have held 
court for divorce cases at this time. Private divorce doubt¬ 
less existed to some extent among the Independents, and 
among others the word of the local pastor may have been 
deemed sufficient. Cromwell’s act of 1653 was the first 
official expression of any kind during this period. Despite 
Milton’s efforts to have divorce by private act established 
as the recognized legal method, Cromwell wisely decided 
to steer a more conservative course and to put the matter 
into the hands of the civil magistrates; but though this act 
appoints officials to decide cases, it gives no intimation of 
what were the acknowledged grounds — if, indeed, any 
existed — for their decisions. The bill reads: 

“That the hearing and determining of all matters and contro¬ 
versies touching Contracts and Marriages, and the lawfulness and 
unlawfulness thereof; and all Exceptions against Contracts and 
Marriages, and the Distribution of Forfeitures within this Act, 
shall be in the power, and referred to the Determination of the Jus¬ 
tices of the Peace, in each County, City or Town Corporate, at 
the General Quarter Sessions; or of such other persons to hear 
and determine the same, as Parliament shall hereafter appoint.” 2 

1 Op . dt., p. 2. 

2 Scobell, II, 238. 


100 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


Although nothing seems to have been done to form a 
legal and authoritative code of rules or principles on which 
such controversies and exceptions might be based, the 
appointment of the justices of the peace as judges in these 
matters was a long step in advance. But, of course, the 
Restoration overturned all this, and conditions reverted 
to those of the early part of the century, except for the fact 
that by 1700 divorce by special act of Parliament became 
possible to the wealthy. Since then England has muddled 
along in her usual way, and even the reforms of 1857, the 
first since Cromwell's time, left divorce affairs in a state 
that can hardly be thought satisfactory. 


CHAPTER IV 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 

I. The Type and its Origin 

The origin of the domestic conduct book in England 
cannot be accurately determined. Priority for native writ¬ 
ing in this field may be claimed on the evidence of Wiclif’s 
brief treatise (if indeed Wiclif wrote it x ) entitled Of Weddid 
Men and Wifis and of Here Children also, but as this was 
not printed until the nineteenth century, it is difficult to say 
whether or not it had any influence in the establishment of 
the genre, which did not take place for a hundred years 
after Wiclifs death. At this time, the first books were 
of foreign origin, although earlier interest in domestic affairs 
is evidenced in England by writing on morals, manners, and 
so forth, especially in books for the instruction of children, 
and was doubtless one of the causes for the translation of 
continental works. But after the establishment of the type, 
English writers soon entered the field, and although foreign 
books continued to be translated, the continuation and 
development of the writing of books concerning domestic 
affairs may be said to have been almost entirely a native 
product. In its most complete form, a book of this type 
contained four principal subjects: (1) discussion of the 
marriage state from religious and secular standpoints, (2) 
the legal elements involved in contracting matrimony, 
(3) mutual relations of husband and wife, (4) the govern- 

1 It is ascribed to Wiclif on the ground of its presence in a volume 
which Archbishop Parker, in the sixteenth century, believed to contain 
only tracts of Wiclif’s composition. No other evidence on the question 
seems available. 


101 


102 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


ment of the family, including housekeeping, the upbringing 
of children, the management of servants, and general house¬ 
hold economics. The ultimate sources of all these books 
were the New Testament (especially the teachings of St. 
Paul), the classics, and the church fathers. 

Wiclif’s treatise, but twelve pages long in its present form, 
is divided into five chapters, which may be summarized: 
(1) the two kinds of marriage ( i.e . that of God and his 
church and that of man and woman), (2) the domestic ele¬ 
ments in human wedlock, (3) the common duties of husband 
and wife, (4) the relations of parents and children, (5) duties 
and dangers in family life. The book lacks any discus¬ 
sion of the contract and ceremony of marriage, the grounds 
of divorce or annulment, and the care of the house and 
servants. Similarly, no one of the first group of domestic 
books presents a complete model for the type; hence the 
selection and combination of the important features of 
earlier works were the particular contributions of sixteenth 
century English writers and their foreign contemporaries 
from whom they translated, to the development of the genre. 
The latter, taken altogether, covered practically all of the 
different elements of the field, and in two cases at least 1 
seem to have set the form for the English writers. 

Among the very earliest books printed in England, we 
find the first on the family. This is Caxton’s Boke of Good 
Manners, translated from the French of Jaques LeGrand 
in 1487 and republished at least four times before the century 
was out. The treatise, 118 folio pages in all, is divided into 
five books, which contain general instruction, or moraliza- 
tion, on the life of man and on his various professions. The 
first is on the seven virtues and some of the corresponding 
vices; the second on church people and clerks; the third 
on the lords temporal; the fourth on “thestate of the 

1 LeGrand’s and Bullinger’s. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


103 


comynalte and of the people”; the fifth on the transitory- 
character of life and the coming of death. Of these, the 
fourth alone concerns us, and of it, only certain chapters. 
It runs to twenty-six pages; the chapter on matrimony is 
but three, and those on household affairs but a little more 
than one each. The complete contents are as follows: 

I. Of Rychemen and how they ought to gloryfye in theyr 
ry chesses. 

II. Of the state of pouerte whyche ought to be agreable. 

III. Of the state of olde age wherin a ma ou5t to be vertuous. 

IV. Of the state of yonge peple & how they shold gouerne them. 

V. Of the state of maryage. & how it ou5t to be mayntened. 

VI. How wymmen ought to be gouerned. 

VII. How virginite & maydenhede ou3t to be maynteyned. 

VIII. Of thestate of wymmen wydowes. 

IX. How seruautes ou5t to be mayntened in theyr seruyce. 

X. How they that ben of euyl lyf dyen ylle. 

XI. How fader and moder ought to teche theyr chyldren. 

XII. How chyldren owen obeyssauce & honour to their parents. 

XIII. Of thestate of marchaunts. 

XIV. Of thestate of pylgryms. 

XV. How dedely synnes desyren deth. 

Here we find eight chapters whose subjects have place 
in practically all later domestic books and which indeed 
form the greater part of them. These are the fourth, fifth, 
sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, eleventh, and twelfth. It 
is evident that the arrangement of subject matter here is 
very poor; nevertheless, the substance, though briefly 
expressed, and the treatment also, is typical of this whole 
species of book. The fifth chapter is the most important 
one for us. On account of the rarity of the book and the 
importance of its subject and style, I am led to quote 
from it at some length. The passage below contains all 
that is essential. 


104 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


“Mariage is ordeyned for to haue lygnage. and for to loue eche 
other. And therfor thappostle seynt poul in his fythe chapitre ad- 
monesteth the wedded men sayeng ye men loue your wyues as Jhus 
Cryste loueth his chyrche. And to this purpoos valere in his iiij boke 
the v chapytre recyteth how a man named graceus lonyd 1 his wyf 
named Corneylle so moche that he wold deye for to gete helthe of 
his wyf. he recounteth also how Cuplacius herd saye that his wyf 
was deed. And thene he smote hym self in the breste with a knyf 
and requyred to be with her. ... 2 Semblably also the wymmen 
owen to loue theyr husbondes/ And herof we haue example as val¬ 
ere recounteth in his boke aforfaid. how Julia the doughter of 
Cezar seeyng the Robe of hir husbond spotted wyth blood was 
soo troubled that for sorowe and henynes/ her chyld that she had 
within her bely was destroyed. . . . After he recyteth of the 
doughter of Cathon named Porcia seeyng her husboud brutus to 
be slayn/ she demaunded a knyf to slee her self also/ And by 
cause that none wold delyue to her no knyf. she toke brennyng 
cooles. and put them in her monthe & ete them don in suche wyse 
that she deyde by a right marueyllo 9 manere. ... 2 And it is good 
to knowe how in mariage after the doctours. thre thynges ought to 
be/ that is to wete fayth. loyalte/ lygnage & sacrament/ By fayth 
and loyalte is gyuen to understode that neyther of the parties maryed 
ought not to trespace with his body but to kepe it to his partye/ 
For as thapostle saith in his fyrst 'epystle to the Corynthyeus/ 
the body of the man is bylongyng to the wyf. And the body of 
the wyf to the man. that is to understonde in mariage/ And as 
seynt Ambrose saith in his exameron. god made eue of the syde 
of Adam/ in signefy...nce that in mariage a man and woman 
ought to be all one body one self thyng. And me semeth that the 
partye that forfayteth his maryage/ dooth a yenst the lawe of 
nature/ For the storke hath suche forfayture in abhomynacon 
of storkes to flee hym or her that so forfayteth. lyke as Alexander 
recouteth in his boke of nature of byrdes. And me semeth it is a 
grete abhomynacion to see in many maryages so lytyl fayth and 
loyalte as now is. But I byleue that one of the causes emonge the 

1 Evidently a misprint for louyd. Confusion of n and u often 
occurs in the book. 

2 Other stories omitted. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


105 


other is. that the maryage be not duely maad. but for ihoney. 
or other euyl cause Thene it is noo merueylle that the maryage 
contynue not well syth the begynuyng therfor the kynge lygurgis 
wolde and ordeyued in his Royame that the virgynes and maydens 
shold be wedded without to haue gold or syluer to thende that the 
maryage shold not be made of couetyse. lyke as pompeus recyteth 
in his iij boke/ And valere in his vij boke the first chaytre recyteth 
how one demanded somtym of a phylosopher named themystodes 
how and to whome he shold marye his doughter. that is to wete to 
a poure man or to a ryche. The whiche ansuerde. that he ought not 
to demande pouerte ne richesse. but the bounte and the vertues 
of the ma. More ouer in maryage ther lyeth right grete aduys. 
and not onely for parantage but also for to Mayntene it/ And to 
this purpoos speketh Theophraste dystyple of Arystotle/ in his 
boke that he made of maryage * in whiche he saith. that a ma ought 
more to beholde the bounte of the woman than the beaulte. and 
yf thou demande whiche is better to take a fayr woman or a foule 
he ansuerde. that it is an hard thyng to kepe a fayr woman the 
whiche many men desyre. And it is a grete payne to loue the foule 
one whiche many despyse. alleway yf she be good the goodnesse 
shal kepe her beaulte. And yf she be not fayr. it is none hard thyng 
to loue her that is of right good wyll. for naturally & resonably 
more ought the bounte to be praysed than the beaulte. Moreouer 
in maryage is moche to be suffred. singulerly yf bothe parties be 
not wyse. For men ben ofte suspecyonno? of theyr wyues/ Ther- 
fore ought a woman to be symple and good. & not onely of her 
body, but also of her maynten and maners/ For in spekying. in 
beholdyng. ne in conuersace she ought not doo ony thyng. by 
whiche ony other myght thynke or Juge in her ony euyll. . . . The 
men also that purpose to marye oughten to aduyse and beholde 
the condycon of her that thay desyre to haue to wyf. But many 
ben deceyued by cause they take them in the age of xij yere or ther 
aboute. and thene what they be/ noman may wete ne knowe. 
For as the comyn prouerbe saith/ how seeth a chylde. seeth no 
thyng./ Also in maryeng hym self, one ought to here many speke 
For loue and carnal affeccyon blyndeth the understondyng. and 
maketh a man fauourable to Juge. whan he is surprysed of suche 


106 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


loue. therfore a ma ought to byleve more another than hym 
self.” i 

The chapters on women, servants, parents, and chil¬ 
dren, although short, formulate the nature of the instruction 
found in all later books on family affairs. The woman 
should fear and obey her husband and should not wear 
gaudy clothes or attempt to improve her complexion. 

“A woman ought to haue resonably two condicohs. that is to 
wyte/ shame of repreef/ and drede of disobeyeng of her partye. 

. . . Semblably ben they that poppe them self & make them to 
seme fayr for to brynge other to synne/ And it is grete merueylle 
how they presume to deffeate and altere that whiche god hath 
made/ & moche lewde is the woman the whiche weneth to mak<? 
her more fair than god hath made her.” 2 

Servants owe their masters honor, truth, faithfulness, obei¬ 
sance, diligence, and patience. Parents should teach their 
children good manners and the doctrines of the church. 

“[Children] owen tobeye to theyr parents lyke as thappostle 
saith to the Ephesiens the vj chapytre. Filij obedite parentibus 
vris/ That is to saye. ye chyldren obeye ye vnto your parents. . . . 
More ou the chyldren ought to loue parfyghtly theyr fader and 
moder. and in nede socoure them lyke as sapion dyde. the whiche 
put hym self in pery 11 of deth for to saue his fader/ And also Eneas 
for to delyuer his fader passed by the myddys of his enemyes.” 3 

The importance of the subject matter of this short treatise 
is self-evident. It may be noted that one element of the 
typical family book is lacking, that is, marriage from a 
legal point of view. This is supplied in full by William Har¬ 
rington’s Comendacions of matrymony, which was not only 
the first book of the kind of entirely English origin but also 
the first which made marriage and married life its whole 
subject and treated it with something like satisfactory com- 

1 Caxton, op. cit. } cap. V. 3 Ibid., cap. XII. 

2 Ibid., cap. VI. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


107 


pleteness. It was published in 1528 and was probably 
reprinted but twice. 1 The gap between this book and Cax- 
ton’s does not seem so great when we consider the small 
number of books published in those years; nevertheless, I 
do not find any evidence of a connection between the two 
except the general subject matter. Harrington’s book is 
not long, being only forty-two pages, 2 but it is extremely 
meaty, and on the subject of the form of the marriage cere¬ 
mony and the legal requirements and impediments of matri¬ 
mony, it contains more definite information than all the 
others put together. It is divided into four parts: the law¬ 
fulness and godliness of matrimony, the method of lawfully 
contracting it, the impediments, and some general rules for 
the conduct of the family. Parts two and three are espe¬ 
cially instructive, but as the essential points of each have 
already been quoted and discussed, 3 further mention here 
is unnecessary. The fourth section contains rules for the 
conduct of married life, but it is too brief and of too general 
a character to be of value except as exhibiting this feature 
of the typical domestic book. It recommends (1) love, 
peaceful dwelling, faithfulness (adultery being a cause for 
separation a mensa et thoro ); (2) mutual help and economy 
in household affairs; (3) the proper upbringing of chil¬ 
dren and the observance of religious practices. As the 
“commendations” given in part one contain the substance, 
in brief, of many later books, it may be worth while to quote 
the most important. 

1 Ames’ Typog. Antiq. (ed. 1810-19), III, 105, describes an undated 
edition by Jno. Rastell. The copy I have used is by Jno. Skot and 
seems to be totally unknown. Redman reprinted the book later. 

2 See bibliography for size and number of pages of books mentioned 
in this chapter. 

3 See above, pp. 39 ff. and 72 ff., respectively. On account of the 
importance of part two, I quote at greater length from it in Appendix 
C, below. 


108 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


“Many thynges ben fonden as well in the olde lawe as in the 
newe, whiche dothe gretely comende ye state & ordre of matry- 
mony. Fyrst in ye olde lawe it is comended of the dygnyte of ye 
maker therof whiche was almyghty god him self. The place where 
it was made which was paradyce. The tyme of ye makynge therof 
whiche was the tyme of innocensie afore there were ony synne/ 
the antyquite of it/ for it was afore all other ordres. The contynu- 
aunce of it/ for it hath ben contynued frome ye begynnynge of the 
worlde in euery lawe/ in euery maner of people/ in euery Cyte and 
in euery tyme. ... In the newe law it is comended and confirmed 
by oure sauyoure cryste. . . . Also in that yt is ordeyned to be 
one of the. vii sacramentes of holy chyrche. . . . For it betok- 
eneth fyrst the unyte whiche is bytwyxte god and the nature of 
man . . . Secondely it betokenethe the unyon of Cryste to his 
chyrche catholycall. Thyrdely it betokeneth ye unyon of Chryste 
to mannes soule.” 1 

The next book to appear in English was a work entirely 
devoted to the government of the household, neglecting 
the ceremony of marriage altogether. This was Richard 
Whitford’s A werke for housholders, published first in 1531, 
and reprinted in 1532, 1533, and 1537. 2 It is a small book, 
fifty-six pages, to which is added a “breue and shorte 
monicyon or counseyle of the cure and gouernaunce of a 
household,” translated from an epistle of Bernard Sylvester, 
seven pages in length. This book is of an intensely religious 
character, its rules for the conduct of the household being, 
for the most part, directions for prayer and an explanation 
of the creed and the commandments. For this reason, it is 
not strictly of the type we are following, but it seems worth 
a passing notice as showing the combination of household and 
religious affairs in a type of book which soon became preva¬ 
lent but which we shall have to omit from our study here¬ 
after. Whitford’s work, though not divided into sections, 

1 Harrington, op. dt., f. Aii b, ff. 

2 D.N.B. gives 1530 and 1538. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


109 


may be summarized: (1) the proper employment of the day, 
including prayers upon rising, “some certeyn occupacyon 
that may be profytable, and euer to auoyde ydlenes ye 
mother and nurse of all synne & euyll,” and a review of the 
day with prayer upon retiring; (2) text and -explanation at 
some length of the Lord’s Prayer, the creed, the ten com¬ 
mandments (two of which are omitted and others confused), 
the principal sins, the five wits, and the works of mercy; 
(3) a form for confession of sin, which should be approached 
“with a meke & sobre countenaunce and behauyour (For it 
is no laughynge game),” the confession being a rehearsal 
of the seven deadly sins performed in full; (4) a table of 
the principal things in the life of Christ. 

Of all this, the declaration of the ten commandments is 
the only part we need stop for, and here I will merely set 
forth a few passages which are interesting for one reason 
or another. The first commandment includes a short 
discussion of witchcraft, in which the difficulty of convincing 
“simple people” of its evil is quaintly described. “Syr,” 
they say, “we meane well/ and we do byleue well & we 
thyke it a good & a charitable dede to hele a sycke persone/ 
or a sycke beest/ and trewth they saye/ but yet it is neyther 
good ne charytable to heale them by unlawfull meane.” 1 
Under the second commandment, the discussion of which 
rambles far from its original subject of swearing, we find 
some interesting notes on the discipline of children. The 
following naively penitential verse is given for the child 
to recite at the end of the day: 

“ Yf I lye/ backebyte/ or stele 
Yf I curse/scorne/mocke/or swere 
Yf I chyde/ fyght/ stryue/ or threte 
Then am I worthy to be bete 
Good mother or maystresse myne 
1 Whitford, op. cit., Cii. 


110 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


Yf ony of these nyne 
I trespace to your knowynge 
With a newe rodde and a fyne 
Erly naked before I dyne 
Amende me with a scourgynge.” 1 

Nevertheless, Whitford maintains, children should be cor¬ 
rected “with a mylde and softe spirit,” and should be in¬ 
formed that “you do the coreccyon agaynst your mynde/ 
compelled thervnto by coscience/ and requyre them to 
put you no more vnto suche labour & payne. For yf thou 
do (say you) you must suffre parte of the payne with me and 
therfore you shall now haue experience and profe what 
payne it is vnto us both.” 2 The third commandment, 
on keeping.the Sabbath, warns the reader against “suche 
vanytes as comunely ben vsed/ that is to saye/ berebay- 
tynge & bulbaytynge/ fodball/ tenesplayng/ bowlynge ” 
and the “ unlawfull games of cardynge/ dycyng/ closshynge/ 
with suche other vnthryfty pastymes/ or rather losetymes.” 3 
Under the sixth commandment, on the avoidance of adultery, 
there is an interesting comment upon private unwitnessed 
contracts of marriage. “It is a great ieopardy therfore,” 
says Whitford, “to make ony suche contractes/ specyally 
amonge them selfe secrete ly alone. . . . And by cause the 
chyrche can not openly knowe that thynge that was spoken 
and done in pryuyte/ they be thought and supposed so to 
lyue as lawfully in maryage.” 4 

The second part of the book, translated by Whitford 
from Sylvester, is a treatise of practical advice of a general 
nature, particularly for a farming household, in the style 
of the Proverbs of Solomon. “Trust hym rather for thy 
frende/ that somwhat doth for the: than hym that dothe 
offre hym selfe: sayenge. I am youres in all I can and may. 

1 Whitford, op. dt., Dii. » Ibid., Div. 

2 Ibid., Dii b. 4 Ibid., Eiii b. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


111 


For in wordes is great plenty of frendes”; or again, in a 
different strain, “Make your byldynges rather for nede 
than for pleasure. For the appetyte of buyldynge for 
pleasure shal neuer haue nede/ tyll pouerte teche wytte 
somwhat to late. Sel not vnto great persones/ but rather 
for lesse vnto ye lower persones.” 1 

We must now turn to several books of continental author¬ 
ship, two of which preceded both Harrington’s and Whit- 
ford’s. As these two were not translated into English 
until some time later and do not seem to have influenced 
either of the books just discussed, I have delayed considera¬ 
tion of them until this point. The first is Vives’ De Insti¬ 
tutions Foeminae Christianae in 1523. The author was a 
Spaniard but was also identified with England. He had 
already received a fellowship from Oxford in 1517, and upon 
the publication of his book, he visited the country and was 
made Doctor of Civil Law by the same university. The 
second work is that of Erasmus, who after several visits to 
England, published at Basel his Matrimonii Christiani 
Institutio in 1526, a book of considerable importance, although 
I have found only one mention of it in any later writing. 2 
Among these continental books, I must include, for the sake 
of convenience, the one classical example that was trans- 

1 Whitford, Hii and Hii b. 

1 Becon and Milton both refer en passant to Erasmus’ views on 
marriage and divorce. Becon mentions both the Annotationes in 
Novum Testamentum and the Matrimonii Encomium. Milton mentions 
two books, without naming them; one of which must be the Institutio. 
Erasmus’ Matrimonii Encomium, 1518, translated into English by Rich¬ 
ard Taverner under the title of A ryght frutefull Epystle, etc., c. 1536, 
is worth mention only because it seems to have escaped notice alto¬ 
gether in the biographies of Erasmus. It is merely a personal letter to 
a cousin urging him to marry. The bare facts of its publication may be 
found in the Bibliotheca Erasmina published by the Bibliotheque de 
l’Universite de l’Etat (Gand, 1893). See also D. N. B. under Taverner. 


112 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


lated into English. This is Xenophon’s work, translated 
by Gentian Hervet in 1532 under the title of Xenophon’s 
Treatise of an Houshold, the original of which was known to 
Vives and mentioned by him in the introduction of his De 
Institutione. The last foreign book of this period is Bul- 
linger’s Christen state of Matrimonye, translated under that 
title from the German by Coverdale in 1541. 1 Of the orig¬ 
inals of these four books, it is difficult to say whether they 
had any influence or not, but my own opinion is that they 
had practically none at all. 2 

Erasmus’ Matrimonii Christiani Institutio was never 
translated into English and seems not to have been repub¬ 
lished even in Latin until 1650. It is, nevertheless, a very 
thorough study of the office and nature of marriage, con¬ 
sisting of 442 pages, but it slights the domestic side of the 
institution, discussing only the general relations of husband 
and wife. The impediments to marriage are treated at 
great length. 3 Erasmus takes the classics and the Christian 
emperors rather than the church fathers as general author¬ 
ities on matrimonial affairs, but his views do not seem to 
differ greatly from those of Catholicism. 

Vives’ book was translated, under the title of Instruc¬ 
tions of a Christian Woman, by Richard Hyrde in 1540, 
and was republished twice in 1541, and in 1557, 1585, 1592, 
besides an undated edition somewhere within this time. 
It consists of 310 pages. In the preface, which is addressed 
to Queen Catherine, Vives described the book as one 

1 I have not been able to find any mention of the original, nor to 
ascertain its title or date; but see below, p. 114, n. 1. 

* Mention should be made somewhere of the fact that Thomas 
More touched upon marriage in his Utopia. He recommends a greater 
freedom of divorce, by allowing it to be obtained by common consent 
of husband and wife; but his discussion of marital problems is too brief 
(a few sentences only) to be of any importance. I have seen no refer¬ 
ences to it in later books. 3 See above, p. 9, n. 2. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


113 


“of the information and bringing vp of a Christian woman: a 
matter neuer yet entreated of any man, among so great plentie, 
and variety of wits and writers. For Zenophon and Aristotell 
giuing rules of house-keeping and Plato making precepts of order¬ 
ing the common weal, spake many things appertayning vnto the 
womans office & duty: & S. Cipri, S. Hierome, S. Ambrose, & 
S. Augustine, haue intreted of Maids, & Widows, but in such wise, 
that they appere rather to exhort and counsaile the vnto some 
kinde of liuing, than to instruct & teach them.” 1 

The book is a practical treatise of every phase of woman’s 
life, divided into three parts, dealing with maids, wives, 
and widows respectively; but with the exception of two 
chapters, entitled “What the wife ought to do at home” 
and “Of Children, and the charge and care about them,” the 
instruction is devoted to woman alone rather than to the 
family or the home. 

The translation of Xenophon’s little household work, 
made in 1532 by Hervet at the instance of Geoffrey Pole, 
was, like Vives’ book, popular enough to run into further 
editions in 1534(?), 2 1540, 1544, 1554, 1557, 1573, and 1592. 
It is but 105 pages and discusses household matters only, 
but being the first book in English entirely on housekeep¬ 
ing, it is important in directing attention to marriage as a 
state of life rather than as a single act. The form is that of 
a dialogue within a dialogue, in which Socrates, reporting 
a conversation with Ischomachus, instructs Critobulus as 
to domestic and farm economics. The chief features of 
household government, as described by Ischomachus, are 
the woman’s duties within the house, and the man’s duties 

1 Vives, op. dt.y p. 1. 

1 There is some doubt as to whether there was an edition in 1534. 
Ames mentions one such, but he may be referring to the 1544 edition, 
which has the date 1534 on the title page but the correct one in the 
colophon at the end. See also D.N.B. 


114 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


without, in the care of the fields and workmen and the study 
of husbandry. Marriage itself is not discussed at all, except 
in the relationship of husband and wife, and this, together 
with the fact the household described is that of a simple 
Greek husbandman, removes the book to some extent from 
the type we are investigating. 

Of the continental books, Coverdale’s Christen state of 
Matrimonye, from Bullinger’s original, in 1541, is by far the 
most important both for its content and its influence. The 
extent of the latter is suggested by the fact that seven more 
editions of it appeared by 1575. 1 Bullinger discusses all 
the important points treated by LeGrand and Harrington, 

1 There are several peculiar circumstances connected with this 
book. Foxe ( Acts and Mon., IV, 679) mentions the Christian state of 
Matrimony as prohibited by ecclesiastical proclamation in 1531. This 
mention is misleading, as the original proclamation (see Wilkins, 
Concilia , III, 720) gives the title as Oeconomia Christiana, which, if it 
refers to Bullinger’s book at all, must be taken to indicate the original 
version, since there can be no doubt that Coverdale’s translation first 
appeared in 1541. (In the same list, is given Matrimonium Johannis 
Tindall, which if ever published, has been since lost sight of. It is not 
mentioned in biographies of Tindale, nor is it included in the 1573 
edition of his complete works.) The Christen state of Matrimonye 
became confused with The Golden Book of Matrimony, 1542, attributed 
to Becon. The truth is that the two are really the same book in dif¬ 
ferent dress. Becon wrote a preface for the Christen state (after its 
first appearance), and some printer changed the name of the book and 
advertised Becon as the author in order to increase its sale. In this 
disguise, it was published in 1542, 1543, and 1546; in its proper form, 
it appeared in 1541, twice in 1543, twice in 1552, and in 1575. (See 
Ames, Typog. Antiq., I, 497 ff.) There are some variations in the dif- 
erent editions. Becon’s own book, The Boke of Matrimony, must not 
be confused with this one. 

Bullinger’s book gives considerable evidence of a connection with the 
divorce of Henry VIII. The following sentence seems to refer directly 
to the royal case: “What is the cause of all this dissention, cruel per¬ 
secution, tyrrany, cruel laws . . . but only the blind ignorance of 
unlearned rulers, which measure all things after their own fond fleshy 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


115 


and although his book presents little that is new and lacks 
some of the definite information given by Harrington, it 
goes into the various aspects of matrimony in greater detail 
and at greater length than any of its predecessors. The dis¬ 
cussion of domestic life occupies at least one-third of the 
author’s attention and establishes this section as a feature 
of this type of book in somewhat the importance it deserves; 
and although the legal and ceremonial aspects of the sub¬ 
ject still occupy more than their proper share of the whole, 
it seems fair to say that the full form and content of the 
typical family book are here first established. Altogether, 
it runs to 156 pages, the substance of which may be epito¬ 
mized as follows: (1) eulogy of marriage and general ex¬ 
planation of domestic life, with warning to parents not to 
force their children to marry against their will or before 
they reach a proper age; (2) tables of consanguinity and affin¬ 
ity with remarks thereupon; (3) general advice in regard 
to cleanness of life and avoidance of carnal sin; (4) account 
of the marriage ceremony and feast, with warning against 
excess; (5) household relations of husband and wife; (6) 
housekeeping, servants, children, education, and apparel; 
(7) divorce. On the whole, this treatise is one of the most 
broad-minded, unbiased, and modern in principle of any 
before Perkins’ Christian Oeconomie. Marriage is defined 
as the “ yoking together of one man & one woman/ whom 
god hath coupled according to his worde/ with the consent 
of the both/ from thence forth to dwell together/ ... to 
the intente that they maye bring forth childre in the feare of 
him/ that they maye auoyde whordome/ and that (accord¬ 
ing to gods good pleasure) the one maye helpe & confort 
the tot her.” 1 A mate is to be chosen for true riches of 

affections . . . and would have their own carnal wishes to stand 
in the stead, yea, rather to be above God and his lawyers.” 

1 Bullinger, op. ait., f. iii b. 


116 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


mind, body, and temporal substance; “yf beside these/ 
thou fyndest other greate riches (bewtye and such like giftes) 
and comest godly and honestlye by them/ thou hast the 
more to thanke God for.” 1 Seven chapters are devoted 
to the affairs of the household, in which much sensible 
advice is contained. In the one on cohabitation, it is 
pointed out that mutual love and forbearance are necessary, 
that the husband is the head of the house, and that the 
wife should be obedient to him. The following chapter 
gives suggestions for the maintenance of love and faithful¬ 
ness on the part of both. Two chapters are devoted to 
housekeeping, one to children, and one to the conduct of 
maidens. The English primers are recommended for the 
instruction of children, after which they should study Latin 
and Greek authors, “noble histories,” and “the tongues,” 
and should read and memorize parts of the Bible. Travel 
is spoken of as beneficial to young men. 

For the sake of convenience, we must mention here two 
somewhat later translations of continental writings. One 
is The Commendation of Matrimony by David Clapham 
from the Latin of H. C. Agrippa, in 1545; and the other, 
The office and duetie of an Husband , 2 by Thomas Paynell 
from the Latin of Vives, in 1553. The former is a very 
small and unimportant book and needs no further notice. 
Vives’ book, 410 pages, a companion volume to his De In¬ 
stitution, is a pretty solid and thoroughgoing presentation 
of married life in all its aspects; for, despite the title, it 
discusses the whole subject and even gives more attention 
to the wife than to the husband. Nevertheless, there is 

1 Bullinger, op. cit., f. xivi. 

2 The date of the original is not known. Wood, who includes Vives 
in his Oxonienses, did not know this book at all. A description of it 
may be found in Brydges, Censura Liter aria, IX, 25. The date of 
the translation is settled in the article on Paynell in D.N.B. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


117 


practically nothing new brought forth, and the value of the 
book is greatly decreased by faulty arrangement and con¬ 
stant digression. The chief feature of interest is that, al¬ 
though the writer was undoubtedly a member of the Church 
of Rome, the book does not present the low ideal of mar¬ 
riage held generally by that body. On the contrary, Yives’ 
attitude is broad and temperate and his ideals are high; 
he even goes so far as to emphasize the importance of 
mental rather than physical agreement in marriage. The 
greater part of the book is on married life, although it 
opens with the usual stereotyped praise of matrimony and 
advice on the choice of a wife. 

Meanwhile, the divorce case of Henry VIII and Catherine 
had excited almost world-wide controversy, which had 
started as early as 1528. This, however, was largely con¬ 
fined to the question of marriage with a deceased wife’s sister 
and the power of the Pope in dispensing with the recog¬ 
nized impediments to marriage. 1 The general position of 
the Church of England and its relations to Rome were, as 
has been shown, at this time somewhat obscure. In order 
to place these clearly before the world, the King, having 
accomplished his immediate project, caused to be compiled 
two books, in which he took occasion to set forth authorita¬ 
tive views on matrimony as held by the established church. 
These are The Institution of a Christian Man, popularly 
known as The Bishops’ Book, in 1537, 2 and The Necessary 
Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man? sometimes 
known as The King’s Book from the fact that he personally 

1 An account of this controversy and the English writing concerned 
in it, is given in Appendix A, below. 

2 Wilkins, History of Divorce and Remarriage, p. 136, dates this 
book “about 1543-4.” There can be no doubt, however, that 1537 
is the correct date. 

3 The substance of both of these books is given in Blunt, Doctrine of 
the Church of England . 


118 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


revised it, in 1543. 1 The latter was simply a recasting of 
its predecessor into a less ecclesiastical form by the Convoca¬ 
tion of Canterbury. Popularly, it was the more impor¬ 
tant of the two, as is shown by the fact that it ran into at 
least seven editions in the year of its publication, 2 but the 
Institution was considered by the King and the church as 
the more authoritative. This treatise was compiled by a 
royal commission of the two archbishops, the nineteen 
bishops, eight archdeacons, and seventeen other doctors 
of divinity and law, and was intended to serve as a hand¬ 
book for the clergy of the realm from which to instruct 
the people. It was translated into Latin and sent by the 
King to the Diet of Spires in 1543-4 to represent the prin¬ 
ciples of the Church of England. The section devoted to 
matrimony, only twelve pages in length, represents it 
exactly as it was held to be by the Church of Rome, except 
for the Pope’s powers of dispensation, and may be taken as 
expressing the attitude of the established church from then 
on, except that by the Articles of 1552 marriage was excluded 
from the number of sacraments. Despite the brevity of 
treatment, most of the usual points in regard to matrimony 
are discussed, viz.: (1) the dignity and value of marriage, (2) 
the original command of God that his people marry and 
his warning against trespassing within the forbidden degrees, 
(3) marriage as signifying the union of God and man and 
of Christ and the church, (4) Christ’s blessing upon mar¬ 
riage and his decree as to divorce, 3 (5) the parts of marriage, 
which are the outward contract and the inward blessings 

1 Ames ( Typog . Antiq., I, 441) mentions an edition of 1542, but says 
that the book was amended and enlarged in 1543. By the edition of 
1542, he must mean the Institution, since all other evidence points to 
1543 as the year of the first appearance of the Necessary Doctrine. 

2 For further account, see Neal, I, 23 ff., and Blunt, p. xiv. 

1 Matt. V, 32, and XIX, 9, allowing divorce (i. e., a mensa et thoro) 
for fornication only. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


119 


and comforts, (6) admonition and advice on married life, 
(7) the nature of the bond, providing that a lawful marriage 
cannot be broken but that one discovered to have been 
unlawfully contracted is null and void ab initio, 1 (8) the 
education of children. It is evident that this book shows 
no originality either in form or substance, but the authority 
under which it was published, its purpose as a handbook 
for popular instruction, and the number of editions its re¬ 
vised form ran into, show at once its great importance in 
current thought. In later writing, however, I find no men¬ 
tion made of it, but this may be accounted for by the fact 
that the church fathers and the great Biblical scholars of 
the German Reformation remained the ever-present author¬ 
ities on ecclesiastical matters, and almost no other writers 
are ever referred to. 

II. Puritan and Romish Attitudes towards 
Marriage 

With the Bullinger-Coverdale book, the formative period 
of our type comes to an end. In those which follow, we 
find no new elements of any importance, although greater 
detail of treatment is present in many. Heretofore, I have 
made no effort to classify the books considered in accordance 
with the wider religious movements of the time, but it is 
evident that different viewpoints are expressed in them. 

1 Wilkins in his discussion of this book {Hist, of Div., p. 137), quotes 
merely the passage that “the bond of lawful marriage is of such sort 
that it cannot be dissolved or broken, but by death only.” This by 
itself is misleading, as it gives no clue to the existence of the further 
passage providing for the annulment of marriage due to former impedi¬ 
ments, in which it is definitely expressed that “The Church may and 
ought to divorce the same persons so unlawfully contracted, and de¬ 
clare that such matrimony is unlawful, and the bond thereof to be of 
no strength or efficiency, because it was never good from the beginning.” 
Blunt, p. 201. 


120 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


Harrington, for instance, is thoroughly Catholic, even to 
the extent of considering marriage a sacrament, and his 
whole treatment is from this point of view. Bullinger, on 
the other hand, represents consistently the German reform 
ideas, which his translator upheld. A point of controversy 
between these two churches which we have not noted as 
yet was in regard to the marriage of priests. The Re¬ 
formers held that marriage was entirely an honorable state, 
quite equal with the virginal life, and that therefore the en¬ 
trance into holy orders was no reason to exclude a man from 
it; so they favored the marriage of the clergy, especially 
as the sexual vileness of the lives of many of them would be 
thus remedied. But the Catholic Church and the Church 
of England held to the belief of celibacy and preferred to 
wink at existing immorality among the clergy. Histori¬ 
cally, the thing went through rather a ridiculous course. 
Edward VI passed a decree allowing priests to marry, where¬ 
upon many former mistresses as well as many reputable 
women became wives; but Mary revoked this decree and 
compelled the priests not only to put aside their newly- 
made wives but to confess publicly that they had been living 
in adultery; and Elizabeth also refused to legalize the mar¬ 
riage of priests but overlooked the practice when it occurred. 
At any rate, the question was greatly debated at the time 
and has place in many of the domestic books, as well as 
being the entire subject matter of considerable other writing. 
But as this dispute is somewhat aside from our real interest, 
we cannot stop for further discussion of it. 

The attitudes of the opposing parties in this question orig¬ 
inated in their different conceptions of the marriage state, 
which affected all later writing in the field, the Puritans 
following the German ideas, and the Church of England 
those of Catholicism. The supporters of the latter, although 
they extolled marriage at great length, took the attitude 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


121 


that it was a kind of necessary evil for the propagation of 
the race; the Puritans, on the other hand, regarded it rather 
as an honorable and natural society of man and woman, of 
which children were the proper result but not the prime cause. 
We find the new attitude in the writings of both Tindale 
and Coverdale, but Becon, writing about 1562, seems to be 
the first to point out the difference between the orthodox 
and the radical conceptions. 1 After extolling the dignity and 
honor of the marriage state and lamenting the abuses which 
it had suffered, he says: 

“But amonge all these aduersaries and enemies of Matrimonye, 
the Romanishe Bishoppe . . . maye not be passed ouer with 
silence: whiche . . . hathe moste filthely corrupted, mangled 
and defiled all the misteries of God, of his holy worde, and blessed 
Sacramentes: yet the moste holy state of godly Matrimony hathe 
he moste vilely and moste wickedly enbased, caste downe and 
made almbste of no reputation. No Turke, no Jewe, no Saracen, no 
Infidell, no Ethnycke, no Heathe, no Miscraut, no, no Devill 
hath at any time so vilely and so wickedly taughte and written 
of this blessed state of honorable wedlocke: as thys wicked Bishop 
of Rome and his adherentes have done.” 2 

Although Becon’s language here may seem a little ex¬ 
treme, he had good grounds for his statements. The early 
church fathers were almost unanimous in their condemnation 
of marriage, 3 and even when the purity of it was admitted, 

1 This difference of attitude toward marriage accounts to a large 
extent for the difference in the way woman was regarded, the Puritan 
conception being much the higher. See below, pp. 170-171. 

2 Becon, Boke of Matrimony, in Worckes, Pt. I, f. ccccclxxv. The evi¬ 
dence in proof of these statements, as Becon says in another place, 
“woulde not a litle not only corrupt the ayre but also offend the eares 
and myndes of the godly readers.” Becon’s own ideas of marriage are 
given below, pp. 126-127. 

3 Milton says on this point: “It was for many ages that marriage 
lay in disgrace with most of the ancient doctors, as a work of the flesh, 
almost a defilement, wholly denied to priests, and second time dis- 


122 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


it was with a tone of apology or depreciation. The words 
of St. Paul, “It is better to marry than to burn,” expressed 
the usual justification for marriage, when one was given. 
St. Augustine could justify it only for the propagation of 
the race. Tertullian, a married man himself, went so far 
as to proclaim that marriage must be eschewed although the 
race perished in consequence. During the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries, the attitude of the Church of Eng¬ 
land was exactly that expressed in the LeGrand-Caxton 
book: marriage was for three causes, — first and most im¬ 
portant, the begetting of children, second, the avoidance 
of carnal sin, and third, mutual help and comfort. Catholics, 
in their turn, were quite ready to condemn the Puritan 
ideas. The Council of Trent anathematized those who 
claimed that “ the marriage state is to be placed above the 
state of viginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and 
more blessed to remain in virginity, or celibacy, than to 
be united.” 1 In England we find similar expression. 
Nicholas Harpsfield, writing in Queen Mary's time of con¬ 
ditions under Edward VI, says: “Then was the heretic 
Jovinian’s old lesson renewed that the religious and virginal 
chaste life and the life of married men should be alike re¬ 
warded. Then were Wicliffs pestilent heresies concern¬ 
ing marriage revived. . . . And it was one of the errors 
and heresies of John Wicliffe ... for the marriages of priests 
and other religious persons, which were made lawful by 

suaded to all, as he who reads Tertullian or Jerom may see at large.” 
Prose Works , I, 344. 

1 For references to books on this subject and brief notes thereupon, 
see Howard, I, 329. John Donne says that the Catholic teachers “in¬ 
jure the whole state of Christianity, when they oppose marriage and 
chastity as though they were incompatible, and might not consist 
together.” Works, IV, 22. He also discusses at some length the atti¬ 
tudes. oT Catholic and Protestant churches in Sermons LXXXI and 
LXXXII, ibid. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


123 


act of parliament.” 1 Similarly, even as late as the reign 
of James I, when the marriage of priests was again permitted 
by law, a writer makes the statement, “Heluidius stands 
condemned by S. Hierome and the other Catholike Doctors, 
for equalling the merit of marriage, with the merit of vir- 
ginitie, which heretical doctrine all the Doctors of Prot- 
estancie do also eagerly maintaine.” 2 

The books which follow Coverdale’s up to the middle of 
the seventeenth century, are almost entirely from the 
Puritans, who, being the aggressors in the general reform 
controversy, maintained their cause against the established 
and royally-protected church only by continued agitation. 
In the domestic books, however, there is little controversial 
writing, this being confined almost entirely to the question 
of divorce, as before noted. Indeed, we find that from this 
time on less and less attention is given to the legal and cere¬ 
monial aspects of marriage, and that the social or household 
side of it is more and more developed, until in such books 
as Carters Christian Commonwealth , Gouge’s Domestical 
Duties, and others, the former subject is either omitted 
altogether or but very slightly touched upon. The ten¬ 
dency of the Puritans to ignore or to avoid discussion of the 
annulment of marriage through impediments, also lessened 
the attention to the legal side of marriage by removing the 
largest field for explanation and debate that had ever 
encumbered the question. 

The cause of the Puritan writing seems to have been more 
a sincere effort to reform the evil practices of the time than 
a desire to wage a war of words upon the Church of England, 
although the latter element contributed. It is diffcult 
to tell from the writings of religious persons, especially from 
those of the straight-laced Puritans, just what the social 

1 Harpsfield, Pretended Divorce, p. 274. 

2 O. A., The Uncasing of Heresie, p. 49. 


124 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


conditions of England were; but it seems pretty clear that 
marriage was not looked upon then as it is now as the pleas¬ 
antest and most profitable form of life. There were several 
causes for this. First, a marriage was seldom of the young 
people’s making, but was arranged and often performed for 
them by their parents before they came to years of discre¬ 
tion and many times while they were infants in arms, as 
has been already shown. 1 The family books all contain 
a discussion of whether or not children should marry with¬ 
out their parents’ consent, and are pretty well agreed that 
they should not, even though they were of age. Through 
contracts foolishly made by children or ambitiously made 
for them by their parents, much unhappiness and many 
unsuitable marriages occurred. Thus, the marriage state 
itself was actually, on the average, not nearly so happy as 
it is today. Secondly, according to orthodox ideas and 
teaching, married life was worldly and imperfect at best; 
and from the point of view of public opinion, a single life 
of immorality was not only not condemned in the slightest, 
but was openly extolled; so that between church and laity, 
marriage had little ground to stand on as a worthy institu¬ 
tion. Thirdly, if we may judge from the entire literature 
of the period, except that based on the ideals of the Italian 
Renaissance, woman, either by nature or training or both, 
was not a little inferior to man; so that the average man 
preferred an occasional mistress to a permanent wife. 2 

Passages illustrative of these points may be found in 
practically all the domestic books of the time, as well as 
in other writing. One author, candidly comparing married 
and single life, says: 

"He therefore that would know the difference betwixt the 
married, and the single life, shall neither finde the one to be abso¬ 
lute good, nor the other to be altogether euill: but herein he shall 

1 See above, p. 14, ff. 

* For discussion of this point, see below, Chap. V. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


125 


see the difference chiefely to consist, that the inconueniences of the 
one may be remedied when a man wil, the miseries of the other 
remaine vncurable; which as they are many, so it is not possible 
to recken them vp.” 1 

Becon, both in the preface written for Coverdale’s book and 
in his own Boke of Matrimony, devotes a good deal of space 
to existing conditions. We have already noted his ideas 
on the influence of the Catholic Church. 2 On the results 
of the forced marriages among noblemen’s children, he has 
the following interesting passage: 

“This kinde of marry eng hath euer bene detested. . . . And 
not without a cause. For whan they come once vnto the perfec¬ 
tion of age, and see other whome they collide finde in theyr harte 
to fansie and loue better, than many of them beginne to hate one 
another . . . and curse theyr parentes euen vnto the pitte of 
hel for the coupling of them together. Than seeke they all means 
possible to bee diuorced one from another. But if it bee so, that 
they remayne styll together, what frowning, ouerwharting, scolding, 
and chiding, is there betwene them, so that the whole house is filled 
full of those tragedies eue vnto the toppe. . . . What a wycked 
and hellyke fife is this! The baser sorte of people seeth this vnquiet 
fife, that is vsed among the Gentilmen and theyr wyues, . . . than 
go they home, and if anye thinge (bee it neuer so lytle) displeaseth 
them, streight they are together by the eares with their wiues, so 
that shortly after the whole towne is in a rore. . . . What is the 
orygynall cause of all these tragicall and bloudy dissencions, but 
only the couetous affection of those parentes whyche for lucres 
sake so wickedly bestow theyr children in theyr youth and yoke 
them with such as they can not favoure in theyr age.” 3 

1 A Discovrse of the Married and Single Life, f. A8 b. 

2 See above, p. 121. 

3 Becon, Worckes, Pt. I, f. ccccclxiiii. Compare the sentiment ex¬ 
pressed in How a Man may Choose a Good Wife, I, 1: 

“This ’tis to marry children when they’re young, 

I said as much at first, that such young brats 
Would ’gree together e’en like dogs and cats.” 


126 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


Bullinger, on the immorality of the time, says: 

“Amonge other greuous synnes & shameles blasphemies/ 
which in this last euell and perelous tyme haue sore increaced 
(helas therfore) & preuayled into a great nobre. This is not the 
leest. I meane aduoutrye with shameles whordome/ and all 
maner of unclenesse in vayne wordes and unchaist workes. All 
this now commeth/ because that such vyces beare nomore theyr 
owne right names/ and therfore doth no man esteme them as they 
are in them selues and in the sight off God. The bloudy murtherer 
... is called a good bold ma of his handes. ... To be dronke/ 
is to be mery/ To commytte whordome/ is called as much as to 
exercise the worke of a man. . . . To cast our vnclenly wordes/ 
and to synge vayne songes off ribawdry/ is called good pastyme. 
yee in many places (the more pite) it is come so farre/ that these 
& such like vyces are couted no synne/ nether is ther any thyng 
rekened for synne in a maner saue onely to talke of god and his 
trueth.” i 

Becon, in his point of view toward marriage, seems to 
be the most modern and least sordid of all the religious 
writers. His definition of the institution comes like a 
breath of fresh air into a cattle shed. 

“[Matrimony is] an hie, holye and blessed order of life, ordayned 
not of man, but of God, . . . wherein one man and one woman 
are coupled and knit together in one fleshe and body in the feare 
and loue of God, by the free, louinge, harty, and good consente of 

1 Bullinger, Christen state , “Author to Reader,” ^ 1. This condi¬ 
tion of immorality continued long after Elizabeth’s time. Thomas 
Heywood, writing in 1624, says, “It followes next in course, that I 
should define vnto you, what these prostitutes and common women 
are; but what need I trouble my selfe so farre, when in these corrupt 
daies almost euerie Boy of fifteene or sixteen yeres old, knowes what a 
strumpet is, better by his own practise than I can illustrate to him 
by all my reading.” History concerninge Women, p. 287. Similar 
passages may be found in other books, such as Barnaby Rich’s Faults, 
Faults and Roome for a Gentleman, Stubbes’ Anatomie of Abuses, etc. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


127 


them both, to the entent that they two may dwel together, as one 
fleshe and body of one wyl and mynd in all honesty, vertue and 
godliness, and spend theyr lyues in equal partaking of all such 
thinges as god shal send them with thankes geuynge.” 1 

This is the key-note of Becon’s Boke of Matrimony, a work 
of 115 folio pages, published about 1562. 2 He had already 
considered matrimony and family life to some extent in 
his Catechism, a voluminous treatise on almost every phase 
of human existence, 3 and had touched upon the duties of the 
various members of the family in his Principles of Christian 
Religion. Considerable attention is given in the Catechism 
to the conduct of men in different walks of life — land- 
owners, rich men, servants, beggars, and men of the various 
professions — and also to household affairs, in which the 
duties of husbands, wives, parents, children, widows, young 
men, maidens, servants, and old people, are considered in 
some detail. The household instruction occupies fifty- 
eight pages in the Catechism, whereas, in the Boke of Matri¬ 
mony, it is reduced to just about half, the reader being 
referred to the earlier treatment. 

1 Becon, op. cit., f. DCxvi. Compare this with Milton’s definition: 
“Marriage is a divine institution, joining man and woman in a love 
fitly disposed to the helps and comforts of domestic life.” Prose Works, 
II, 143. Milton had already said, “God in the first ordaining of mar¬ 
riage taught us to what end he did it ... to comfort and refresh 
him [man] against the evil of solitary life, not mentioning the pur¬ 
pose of generation till afterwards, as being but a secondary end in 
dignity, though not in necessity.” Ibid., I, 343. 

2 No one seems to have made any attempt to ascertain the dates of 
Becon’s different works. The earliest extant edition of the Boke of 
Matrimony, which was written during his prolonged illness, seems to 
be that contained in his Worckes, published in 1564. 

3 The catechism was a very popular form of instruction book in this 
period, and all of them contain points of interest. The instruction, 
however, was almost entirely religious, and seldom descended to every¬ 
day life sufficiently to give us information on the practices of the time. 


128 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


The Boke of Matrimony we may take as our typical do¬ 
mestic book in its completest and best balanced form. It 
is divided into four parts: (1) the excellence and dignity of 
marriage, (2) what matrimony is, from different standpoints, 
(3) for what it was instituted, (4) the conduct of the family. 
Internally, each part is not so well balanced, but a proper 
sense of proportion seems to have been universally lacking in 
writers of these books. The only one of the four parts 
which I have not treated to some extent already, is that on 
family life. We may consider it a fair representative of 
like discussions in other domestic books. Indeed, the sim¬ 
ilarity of all such treatises is so great that one wonders what 
moved the different writers to repeat over and over that 
which had been said so often before. Speaking generally, 
we may say that, except for greater detail or more extensive 
illustration, the household section of the domestic book 
remained the same in content and point of view from start 
to finish, and that to read one is to read all. The reason for 
this is obvious: the original authority, that is the Bible, 
was the same for all, and no controversy of interpretation 
had arisen in this field among the fathers of the church. 
Without clinging too closely to Becon’s arrangement of 
his material, we may summarize this section of the typical 
book as follows: (1) mutual duties of husband and wife — 
to love each other, to beget children, to live chaste; (2) duties 
of husband to wife — to act as guide, philosopher, and 
friend, to provide for her, to defend and help her; (3) duties 
of wife to husband — to serve him in subjection, to be modest 
in speech and apparel, to have charge of the house and its 
management; (4) duties of parents to children — to bring 
them up in godly wise, to settle them in an occupation and 
in marriage; (5) duties of children to parents — to be sub¬ 
ject and obedient; (6) duties of masters and mistresses to 
servants — to protect and be kind to them; (7) duties of 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


129 


servants — to be obedient and faithful. In some books, 
the discussion of domestic relations is more full than this, 
there being in addition special chapters on maids, widows, 
and stepmothers. The woman usually receives the greater 
part of the instruction, in accordance with the popular 
principle of the time that she was, as Touchstone said, “an 
ill-favored thing but mine own,” or, as R. C. put it, “though 
she be by nature weaker than he [the husband], yet she is 
an excellent instrument for him.” 

III. Later Domestic Books 

For the light they throw on Milton and on the early 
seventeenth century writers in general, it seems worth 
while to trace the course of the domestic conduct books as 
far as 1643, although, as I have already stated, they show 
very little development during this time. By way of 
preface to this period, it may be well to remark that both 
new books and new editions of the old continue without 
break, and, excepting a very few, 1 without any effects from 
other literary influences. One would expect that the two 
types of Italian book illustrated by the Principe and the 
Cortegiano would have exerted a strong influence in our field; 
but, although both of these works were translated and imi¬ 
tated in the period, they do not seem to have affected the 
domestic book as a whole in the slightest, and although 
they were popular among aristocratic circles, it is doubtful 
if they were read by our authors. 

The eighth and ninth decades of the sixteenth century 
witnessed a considerable amount of publication in the 
field of domestic literature. James Chillester’s translation 
of Boaistuau’s French rendition of the Latin work of Tigu- 

1 These are treated separately later on, pp. 140-141, 143-144. See 
also Chap. VI. 


130 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


rinus Chelidonius, under the title A most excellent Historie 
of . . . Christian Princes, in 1571, concludes with a chapter 
on marriage and shows a combination of the interest of the 
family book and the book of the Principe type. John Fit 
Jonn’s A Diamonde Most precious, in 1577, “ Instructing 
all Maysters and Seruaunts how they ought to leade their 
lyues,” touches only one side of the domestic book. Some¬ 
what longer and more inclusive works are: Dudley Fenner’s 
The Order of Household , l in 1584, The Schoole of Beastes, 
translated by J. B. from the French of Pierre Yiret, one of 
the French-Swiss Reformers, in 1585, Hans Dekin’s trans¬ 
lation in c. 1588 of Herman V’s handbook for his people 
under the title A briefe and plaine declaration of the duety 
of maried folkes, etc., The Housholders Philosophie, translated 
by Thomas Kyd in 1588 from the Italian of the poet Tasso, 
the anonymous A Display of Duty, in 1589, and three appar¬ 
ently non-extant books, R. W.’s Order of Matrimony, in 1580, 
S. S.’s Brief Instructions for Families, in 1583, and Charles 
Gibbon’s Compendius Form of Domestical Duties, in 1589. 2 
All of these are rather small books (except, perhaps, the 
non-extant ones), and contain nothing new in the way of 
subject matter. 3 

Two books of this time devoted entirely to the relations 

1 This forms the third part of Fenner’s The Artes of Logike and 
Rhetorike. 

2 The last three titles are taken from Watt, who also mentions 
A Modest Means to Marry, translated in 1568 by N. Leigh from the 
Latin of Erasmus. I can find no other reference to Leigh anywhere, 
and no such book by Erasmus ever seems to have been heard of. 

s The fact that several of these books are translations from conti¬ 
nental works, may seem to invalidate what has been said of the lack of 
external influences upon the English domestic book; but it must be 
noted that these are not only small and ephemeral in themselves but 
also that they do not seem to have influenced in turn the later and more 
important books of the type. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


131 


of parents and children are The Christian man } s Closet , 
translated in 1581 from the Latin of Bartholomew Batty 
by William Lowth, and A Bartholmew Fairing for Parentes by 
John Stockwood in 1589. The former is in the form of 
a dialogue between three men and a woman, and treats 
pretty thoroughly of the upbringing, education, and duties 
of children. Stockwood’s book is concerned entirely with 
the marriage of children, in which he claims, on Biblical 
authority, that they should submit entirely to their parents’ 
dictates. 

“The question here [he says] is not, what children in regarde 
either of age or wit are able for to doo but what God hath thought 
meet & expediet. . . . For there are many children found some¬ 
times far to exceede their fathers in wit and in wisedome, yea and in 
al other gifes both of mind & body, yet is this no good reason that 
they should take vpon them their fathers authorities 1 

Such was the logic of the time. 

The books between 1570 and 1590, it may be noticed, are 
all rather brief and not in any sense as weighty as either 
Bullinger’s or Becon’s. In the next decade, however, we 
find several of both length and thoroughness. The first 
is William Perkins’ Christian Oeconomie, written in Latin in 
1590 and translated by Thomas Pickering in 1609. Perkins 
was a man of both sense and learning, and his book is one 
of the best planned, best balanced, most practical, and most 
informing of the whole series. In the table of contents to 
his The Golden Chain, “ oeconomics,” or family government, 
is described as one of the sacred sciences which are “hand¬ 
maids to the Science of Theology”; and this represents his 
attitude to his subject, which he treats from a reasonable 

1 Stockwood, op. cit., p. 82. Stockwood says further that marriages 
made by children without parental consent were legally void. He is 
wrong here, unless he means only children under age. 


132 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


and charitable point of view rather than from the dogmatic 
attitude of the textuists. Marriage is first explained and 
extolled; then the legal aspects are discussed, with a con¬ 
sideration of what persons are fitted to marry and what 
forms should be gone through with; and lastly the relations 
and duties of the members of the household are concisely 
set forth. 1 All things considered, this book is far more 
satisfactory than any of its predecessors. It is of convenient 
length for practical use, being 175 pages, and it impresses 
the reader as presenting the true conditions of the time 
without any attempt to further the views of any one sect. 

Two other good books appeared about the same time. 
One was A Preparative to Manage, in 1591, by Henry Smith, 
whom Brook calls “the first preacher in the nation.” 
According to the title page, this treatise was developed 
from a marriage sermon. It discusses most of the usual 
points but is poorly proportioned and absolutely without 
order or arrangement. Domestic relations are summarized 
thus: 

“The dueties of marriage may be reduced to the dueties of man 
and wife one toward another, and their duties towarde theyr Chil¬ 
dren, and their dueties towarde their seruants. For themselues, 
sayeth one, 2 they must thinke themselues like two birdes, the one 
is the Cocke and the other is the Dam: the Cocke flieth abroad 
to bring in, and the Dam sitteth vpon the nest to keepe all at 
home . . .for the mans pleasure is most abroad and the womans 
within.” 3 

The other book, which is quite similar on the whole to those 
of Perkins and Smith, is A Godly Form of Hovseholde Gouerne- 
ment, by R. C. [Robert Cleaver?], in 1598 and republished 
in 1600, 1603, 1612, and 1630. This book, the writer says, 

1 The table of contents of this book is given in Appendix D, below. 

2 This story occurs also in Dekyn’s book, f. B8 b, and may have been 
taken from it. 

3 Smith, op. cit., p. 46. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


133 


is partly original and partly gathered from preceding works. 
Its various sources are unimportant, but even a casual 
reader will notice that whole passages are lifted from Smith’s 
Preparative. R. C.’s was the longest book yet written, 
running to 392 pages, but its material is poorly arranged. 
The point of view is, on the whole, broad and lenient. Of 
family government, it is said: 

“A wise husband, and one that seeketh to liue in quiet with his 
wife, must obserue these three rules. Often to admonish: Seldome 
to reprooue: and neuer to smite her. . . . The husband is also 
to vnderstand, that as God created the woma, not of the head, & 
so equall in authorise with her husband: so also he created her 
not of Adams foote, that she should be troden downe and despised, 
but he tooke her out of the ribbe, that shee might walke ioyntly 
with him, vnder the conduct and gouernment of her head.” 1 

Three other works may be briefly dismissed. Charles 
Gibbon’s A Work worth the Reading, in 1591, has two chapters 
on the relations of parents and children, but as a whole is 
not a domestic book. In his discussion of the marriage 
of children, Gibbon upholds the belief that the affections of 
the children should be of more weight than the wishes of 
the parents. The anonymous Order of Household Instruc¬ 
tion, in 1596, seems to be non-extant. 2 There is a very 
brief treatise, Duties of Husband and Wife, undated, annexed 
to R. C.’s Godly Form and perhaps written by him, but it is 
of no importance. 3 

1 R. C., op. cit., p. 201. The same statement and illustration, in 
somewhat different wording, occurs in Perkins’ Christian Oeconomie, 
p. 125, in Griffeth’s Bethel, p. 289, in the anonymous A Curtaine Lecture, 
p. 170, and in one of Donne’s sermons, Works, IV, 29, where it is attrib¬ 
uted to St. Jerome. So much sameness of subject matter and treat¬ 
ment is there in these family books. 

2 It is mentioned by Watt. 

3 The book Of Manage and Wiuing, a controversy between Tasso, 
the poet, and his cousin Hercules, the philosopher, translated into 


134 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


The course of the domestic book during the first half 
of the seventeenth century is somewhat obscured by the 
many contemporary works of various kindred types all 
centering around the subjects of marriage, married life, 
and divorce. Some of these have already been mentioned 
in preceding chapters, and others will be taken up later; 
but all such must be omitted for the present in order that 
we may follow our narrow stream into the larger and more 
confused current. As suggested above, these other influences 
seem to have left the narrower stream unaffected. 

The family books of this period contain practically the 
same subject matter as their forerunners, except for the 
omission or curtailing of the discussion of the entrance 
into matrimony, and approach the subject, on the whole, 
in much the same way. It will be sufficient, therefore, 
to pass them by in review as briefly as possible. Swinburne’s 
Treatise of Spousals, already referred to many times, was 
written about 1600, but as it treats of spousals only, further 
mention of it is unnecessary. William Vaughan’s The Golden 
Grove, 1599, republished in 1608, contains one section on 
marriage. Beside the usual contents, Vaughan presents 
a new classification of marriage, according to which he 
represents it as being of four kinds: (1) of honor, that is, 
between man and God, as in the case of the Virgin Mary 
with the Holy Ghost or of Christ with the church; (2) of 
love, that is, the union of an honest man and an honest 
woman; (3) of toil, in the case where a man chooses a woman 
for her riches only; (4) of grief, the union of two wicked 
persons. 1 Joseph Hall’s Salomons Diuine Arts, in 1609, 
devotes one section to oeconomics or household govern¬ 
ment, in which he discusses family affairs, omitting mar- 

English by R. T. in 1599, can hardly be classified with the family 
books. For further notice of it, see below, p. 144. 

1 A similar classification is made in Griffeth’s Bethel, p. 255 ff. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


135 


riage itself altogether, by stringing texts together, with 
words of his own interpolated, in a style unequaled by 
Sancho Panza. 1 It contains nothing of interest. In 1610, 
Edward Topsell published a volume of three sermons 
entitled The House-holder , in which he says in the preface 
“are many sweet flowers, many profitable trees or Plantes, 
and many faire growing seeds.” The last sermon contains 
some instruction of a definite kind, particularly for farm 
life; the others are merely moral discourses. Robert 
Snawsel’s A Looking Glasse for maried Folkes, in 1610, a 
dialogue between four women and one man, is almost as 
good as a play and has real literary qualities, but its purpose 
seems to be utilitarian rather than artistic. Its entire sub¬ 
ject matter is the relationship which should exist between 
man and wife, especially the treatment that wives owe their 
husbands. A book concerned altogether with the relations 
of parent and child was translated by John Budden in 1614 
from the French of Peirre Ayrault, under the title of A 
Discourse for Parents Honour and Authoritie. In this, the 
opposite view is taken from Gibbon’s, as the author, in a 
kind of supplication of distressed parents, argues that in the 
question of their marriage, children should have nothing to 
say whatever. 

The book of domestic duties reached its culmination in 
the second quarter of the seventeenth century. Although 
the household alone had previously been made the subject 

1 The following description of the scarlet woman is too good to 
lose: “By the abundance of the sweetnesse of her speech (Pr. 7. 21) 
shee caused him to yeeld: and with the flatterie of her lippes she intised 
him; and straight wayes hee followes her as an oxe goeth to the slaugh¬ 
ter (Pr. 7. 22) and as a foole to the stockes for correction (Pr. 7. 23) 
till a dart strike through his liuer, the seate of his lust: or as a birde 
hasteneth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is against his owne 
life: thus shee doeth and when her husband returnes, shee wipeth her 
mouth and saith, I haue not committed iniquitie.” Op. dt., p. 158. 


136 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


of several works, these were for the most part very slight. 
At this time, however, we have a number of important books, 
some of which we must consider for a moment at least. 
These are: William Whately’s A Bride-bush, 1619 and 1623, 
Alexander Niccholes’ A Discovrse of Marriage and Wiving , 
1620; William Gouge’s Domestical Duties, second edition in 
1626, third in 1634 1 ; Carters Christian Commonwealth, by 
Thomas Carter, 1627; Matthew Griffeth’s Bethel, 1633; 
Daniel Touteville’s Saint PauVs Threefold Cord, 1635; the 
anonymous A Curtaine Lecture, 1637; Daniel Rogers’ Matri- 
moniall Honovr, 1642; William Dyke’s A Discourse on Mat¬ 
rimony, 1642; and Thomas Page’s Demonstration of Family 
Duties, 1643. The last two seem to be non-extant. 2 Nic- 
choles’ and Touteville’s we may also drop without further 
notice, as they contain nothing of interest. Carter’s book, 
bearing the subtitle of Domesticall Dutyes deciphered, a 
treatise of 275 pages, is on the family alone, taking up in 
separate chapters the duties of husbands, wives, parents, 
children, masters, and servants. Whately’s book is con¬ 
cerned entirely with the duties of husband and wife, which 
are divided into the greater and the lesser, the classification 
being based on whether or not the failure in any one was 
sufficient cause for divorce. This book, 220 pages in length, 
is perhaps the most thorough of all as far as it goes, but it is 
evident that it covers but one phase of family life. Besides 
its thoroughness, it has the merits of being excellently 
planned and written from the point of view of practical 
common sense rather than from the authority of the Bible 
and the classics. 

1 I am unable to ascertain the date of the first edition. 

2 Dyke’s book is mentioned by the Stationers’ Register, Feb. 25, 
Page’s by Watt. Another book, A Discovrse of the Married and 
Single Life , anonymous, 1621, is merely a coarse and silly diatribe 
against women. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


137 


Gouge’s Domestical Duties and Griffeth’s Bethel: or, Forme 
for Families may fairly be said to exhaust all previous 
sources and authorities in their treatment of family life. 
Both are large works, the former running to 368 folio pages, 
and the latter to 528 pages quarto. Although both are 
chiefly concerned with the domestic side of marriage, there 
is a discussion in each of the contract of matrimony from a 
practical standpoint. The impediments are confined by 
both writers to the Levitical degrees, but Gouge strongly 
condemns the marriage of impotent or diseased persons. 
He also states that divorce is allowable for adultery and 
for desertion due to religious differences; Griffeth condemns 
adultery and other vices but does not touch the subject of 
divorce. A short consideration of the double standard of 
morality occurs in both books, in which the authors agree 
that faithlessness on the part of the wife causes greater 
evils to the family; but on the magnitude of the sin itself, 
they disagree, Gouge holding that it is the same for both 
sexes and Griffeth maintaining that the woman sins the 
more. Gouge’s book is superior in both arrangement and 
general treatment, and is further enhanced by a table of 
contents, an index, and cross references. The first part, 
comprising one fourth of the whole, is an exposition of those 
parts of the Scriptures from which the later teachings of 
the book are drawn, and obviates the overloading of the 
following sections with Biblical texts, a fault which is 
only too noticeable in Griffeth’s work. Moreover, like the 
books by Perkins and Whately, it is most sensibly written 
and argued, and impresses one as being based not only on 
the Scriptures but also on the practices and thought of the 
time, whereas Griffeth’s work resembles more some of the 
previous hashings and rehashings of ancient dogma. For 
the word Bethel on the title page, Griffeth substitutes God’s 
building in the body of his book; and it is his intention to 


138 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


show how a family should be constructed into some such 
form. Gouge, on the other hand, is more concerned with 
giving practical instructions for family life along the best 
human lines. 1 

Daniel Rogers’ Matrimoniall Honovr is interesting for 
several reasons. It was written by a minister of the Church 
of England; like Gouge’s book, it is an exposition of life 
rather than the Scriptures; it is extremely human in its 
attitude, kindly towards the much abused weaknesses of 
mankind, and respectful towards people whose beliefs 
differed from the author’s own. Were it not for the fact 
that it covers but a small part of the field, although 389 
pages in length, it would surely outrank all others of the 
type. Rogers discusses only two main subjects, the honor 
of matrimony and the duties of husband and wife, but 
digresses at times to speak of parental consent to child 
marriages, of contracts of marriage, and, in an appendix, 
of chastity and the lack of it. The chapter on contracts 
contains much information, but nothing that has not been 
already noted, except that on the subject of the marriage 
of cousins germain, the writer says: “I observe of late 
time many more Divines to encline to the affirmative, then 
formerly have done; and some of them . . . that they 
do write for it, and have determined the marriages of 
some in this way.” 2 Rogers himself upholds the Levitical 
degrees but does not mention other impediments. Divorce 
and the annulment of marriage are not discussed at all. 
The book is particularly free from Scriptural references 
(there is about one per page) and even more so from allu¬ 
sions to the classics and the church fathers. On the whole, 
the style is the most pleasing and the least pedantic of all 

1 In order that the reader may have a complete idea of the domestic 
book, I give in Appendix D, below, outlines of the contents of those by 
Perkins, Gouge, and Griffeth. 

2 Rogers, op. cit., p. 111. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


139 


the books we have considered. At times there is real beauty 
of a naive kind, as in the passages already quoted 1 or in 
the following one on the “gracefullness” of the wife: 

“Let thy pleasing influence breake through all opposition and 
sorrowes, as the Sunne breakes through the thick mist, or darke 
cloudes, yea although eclipsed in part, yet shine in part, and let a 
glimmering appeare; remember, thou art a true friend, made for 
the day of adversity. . . . Every base bird (while summer lasts) 
will chirp and chitter: But to sing upon a bare bow, or thorne 
bush, when the leaves are gone, and the cold winter approacheth, 
this argues a wife truely gracefull, truly amiable and cheerfull, and 
(next to the Soule’s peace with God) is the greatest content under 
the Sunne.” 2 * 

IV. The Domestic Book as Literature 

As has already been intimated, the domestic book is util¬ 
itarian rather than literary, and whenever a passage of some 
artistic merit occurs, such as the one just quoted from 
Rogers, it is, like water in the desert, refreshing but seem¬ 
ingly out of place. A few sporadic works make usefulness 
subservient to art; but before mentioning these, it will 
be well to note the stylistic features of the more typical 
book. 

Perhaps the most noticeable of these is the use of Biblical 
texts and Biblical, ecclesiastical, and classical authority 
and illustration. In Fenner’s Order of Household , texts 
occupy more space than the explanation of them; on the 
other hand, some books are almost free from texts as well 
as from precepts and anecdotes from the classics and church 
fathers. A generous sprinkling of all three is found on the 
average page, the proportion depending on whether the 
writer is accustomed to argue on the basis of authority and 
precedent or on that of common sense and expediency. 

1 See above, pp. 90-91. 

2 Rogers, op. cit., p. 315. 


140 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


Many writers vary the monotony of their prose by intro¬ 
ducing verses translated from Greek and Latin authors. 
The translations are usually clumsy, but occasionally 
there is one with considerable naive grace. 1 For illustra¬ 
tion, writers went also to the animal world. Yiret, for 
example, in The Schoole of Beastes, draws all his lessons 
in household economy from this source, which he divides 
into three species, — (1) ants, conies, grasshoppers, and 
spiders; (2) pigeons, swallows, partridges, hares, and hedge¬ 
hogs; (3) the Halsion (a “Byrde of the Sea”), “phyces,” 
the lamprey, the tortoise, the sea-calf, and the crocodile. 
Much of this pseudo-naturalism, like Lyly’s, is taken over 
from classical sources, Ovid being a favorite. The amount 
of such illustrations, like that from the Scriptures and the 
classics, varies greatly, in some books being practically 
absent altogether. The more ecclesiastical writers preferred 
to take examples from their own stock in trade. 

The dialogue form was employed to add variety, which 
it usually failed to do, inasmuch as the writer, without 
changing his character or point of view, merely shouted 
through different masks. This was not so in every case, 
but at best the debate resolved itself into a puppet ishow in 
which the author pulled all the strings. In only one or 
two instances is the nature of these dialogues taken from 
the Italian conversazione. The devise is, of course, much 
older than the Italian Renaissance, having come into Eng¬ 
land through the classical dialogue and the French debat 
and more directly at this time through the dialogues of 
the church fathers. The former, especially the dialogues of 
Plato, Cicero, and Seneca, was, I think, a greater influence 
among these books than either the older French or English 

1 Viret, Schoole of Beastes, Niccholes, Discovrse of Marriage and 
Wiving, and Heywood, History concerninge Women, contain some of 
the best of these. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


141 


or the contemporary Italian. The similarity to the classic 
type is seen in the use of various speakers merely to draw 
out the opinion of the one man who leads the discussion 
and who alone has any character or anything to say. Thus 
the style failed to be affected to any extent by the device, 
and remained practically the same as when the writer 
spoke in his own character without taking the trouble to 
dodge about in different make-ups. The only really suc¬ 
cessful exception to this, outside of those where the purpose 
of the work is avowedly artistic rather than utilitarian, is 
Snawsel’s Looking Glasse for maried Folkes, where each 
speaker has a distinct character and distinct ideas. A 
passage on the proper way for a wife to treat her husband 
may be worth quoting: 

“Eulalie [the well-spoken]. When he lookt at any time very 
sad, & there were no fit time to speak to him, I would not the 
laugh & daily with him, and play the tom-boy . . . but I put 
vpon me a sad countenance, and lookt heauily. ... So it be- 
seemes an honest wife to frame herselfe to her husbands affections. 

. . And if at any time he were stird, I would either pacify him, 
with a gentle speech, or giue way to his wrath. . . . This course 
also I tooke; if he came drunken home, I would not then for any¬ 
thing haue giue him a foule word, but I would cause his bed to be 
made very soft and easie, that he might sleepe the better, and by 
faire speeches get him to it. 

“Margerie [a proud malapert]. Here are fetters for the legs, 
and yoakes for the neckes of women: must they crouch on this 
manner to their currish and swinish husbands? If I had such an 
one, as he behaued himselfe like a swine, so would I use him like 
a beast.” 1 

When the writer faced a real rather than an imaginary op¬ 
ponent, his style was likely to become much more vivacious; 
but this seldom took place in these books. The Church 

1 Snawsel, op. cit. f i. D b. 


142 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


of Rome was the usual opponent when there was one, but 
the lack of personality and personal criticism in this case 
rendered opposition to it much less vigorous than other con¬ 
temporary writing of more truly controversial nature. 

As a rule, then, the style of the domestic book is pretty 
flat, pedantic, heavy. It reminds one of the atmosphere 
of a Puritan household: the author or father is tremendously 
serious, texts fly about, the fate of the family seems to hang 
momentarily in the balance, now and then there is a sally 
at those who would take Sunday to walk in the Mall, less 
often a softening of tone over some remembered incident; 
but on the whole life is earnest, if not real, for this house¬ 
hold; God is watching overhead ready to descend in his 
wrath at the first slip by any one of its members from the 
narrow path, and the devil is waiting in ambush hoping 
to trip the unwary. 

As I have already indicated, there grew up no literary 
genre on the subject of matrimony. Books in which the 
characters happen to be married, more general works on 
morals and conduct, and plays dealing with the subject, 
are not to be classified here. The residue are few in number, 
scattered as to date, and, except for a few satires, seem to 
have neither mutual relations nor common ancestry. Never¬ 
theless, these should be mentioned briefly before we leave 
the field altogether. 

As early as Middle English times, we find the subject of 
marriage entering literary fields. Passing by such alle¬ 
gorical poems as the Wohing of ure Laverde, which deal 
with the old idea of the marriage of Christ and the church, 
we find more than incidental interest in the subject shown 
in the story of Meed in Piers the Plowman. The treatment 
here, however, is too general to merit more attention. 
Chaucer makes considerable capital of marital affairs, and 
a number of the Canterbury Tales seem to have been de- 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


143 


signed to set forth the different contemporary points of 
view towards married life and the character of the married 
woman. The Prologue to the Wife of Bath’s Tale, which 
introduces the group, is especially noticeable for its satire 
of the ecclesiastical attitude towards the institution. Bar¬ 
clay, in his Ship of Fools, devotes a few sections to the 
various evil practices connected with marriage, but these 
do not form any distinct part of the larger work. For over 
half a century after this, the subject occurs only in verse 
satires and as an incidental interest in other literary works 
— the drama for instance. The former are altogether on 
the hardships of married life and emphasize the evils suf¬ 
fered by one party from the brutishness of the other. 1 John 
Heywood’s A dialogue . . . concernynge two maner of maryages, 
in 1561, alone shows a serious interest in the subject. 
Here, in a one-sided dialogue between a young man and an 
old, the latter, in recounting the history of two marriages — 
one of an impecunious but loving couple, the other of a 
poor young man and a rich old widow — shows the ill 
fate of both unions. It is in four-stress verse, irregular 
and uneven, rhymed in couplets. The most interesting 
literary feature of it is the use of old saws, of which it is 
a veritable storehouse. Tilney’s Flower of Friendship shows 
very strongly the Italian influence, and is the most success¬ 
ful English court of love conversazione that I have seen. 
There were two editions in 1568 and another in 1571. This 
book, by Edward Tilney, afterwards Master of Revels 
to Queen Elizabeth, is a close imitation of the Cortegiano. 
The title signifies marital love, which Tilney understands 
to be literally the flower of friendship. In the first day’s 
discussion, Master Pedro leads the dialogue, which turns 
upon how a husband should preserve this flower. On the 
second day, Lady Julia, who has been replaced by Aloisa 

1 For further account of these, see p. 163 ff. below. 


144 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


as queen, leads a discourse on the duties of a wife. Vives 
and Erasmus are introduced as interlocutors, but neither 
has much to say. On the whole, the dialogue falls short 
of Castiglione’s in having less exchange of opinion and less 
repartee and in the absence of the wisdom of a Bembo. A 
book by Tasso, translated by Thomas Kyd in 1588 1 under 
the title of The Housholders Philosophic, though similar in 
many ways to the Cortegiano, is not a conversation but a 
monologue in a typical Italian setting on the usual house¬ 
hold subjects. The poet’s ideal of marriage is better ex¬ 
pressed in the dialogue with his cousin Hercules, entitled 
Of Manage and Wiuing, which was translated by R. T. 
in 1599. Here, woman is apotheosized in Platonic love; 
marriage is apostrophized thus: 

“0 sweete conioyning of loyall hearts, 0 dulcet union of our 
soules togither, O most louely nuptuall knot, 0 most chaste, pure 
and religious marriage yoake, who are rather a pleasing ease, and 
a most welcome delight to support and beare, then any hard weight 
or greeuous burthen to sustaine: rather a releeuing comfort that 
vpholdeth vs euery way, then a troublesome labour, that any way 
paineth us.” 

This is somewhat typical of the poet’s part of the dialogue, 
which inclines towards cant and rhapsodizing. It is dis¬ 
concerting to think that this writer was not married, and 
that his cousin, who villifies woman and marriage, was. 
Bacon wrote three essays which are worth mentioning here, 
Married and Single Life , Parents and Children, and Friend¬ 
ship; but these are too brief and empty to be of importance 
to us. The opening sentence from the first, “He that 
hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune,” 
is deservedly famous. 

In the first half of the seventeenth century, we find more 

1 On the title page, only the initials T. K. are given, but the Camb. 
Hist. Eng. Lit., V, 177, ascribes the translation to Kyd. 


THE DOMESTIC CONDUCT BOOK 


145 


literature on the subject, 1 but still not enough to enable us 
to attach much importance to it. An anonymous Scottish 
poem, in 1603, Ane verie excellent and delectabill Treatise 
intitulit Philotus, reminds one of Heywood’s dialogue. The 
title page gives its substance—“Qvhairin we may persave 
the greit inconveniences that fallis out in the Manage 
betvvene age and zouth.” It is a verse dialogue and may 
have been written as an interlude. 2 Patric Hannay’s A 
Happy Husband , 1618, and R. B.’s The Good Wife, 1619, 
may be taken together. 3 Both are in verse, the former in 
heroic distich, well maintained, and the latter in seven-line 
stanzas. Both are on women, are fairly short, and are typical 
of the “character writing” popular at the time. The Happy 
Husband consists of two parts, directions for a maid as to 
how to choose a husband and her proper behavior after 
marriage. The poem is coupled by commendatory verses 
with Overbury's A Wife. The Good Wife is merely the 
usual description of what she should be. 

Two amusing books of similar nature appeared in 1637 
and 1640. The earlier is the anonymous A Curtaine Lecture , 4 
the other is Ar't asleepe Husbandt A boulster lecture by 
Richard Brathwait under the pseudonym of Philogenes 
Panedonius. The content of each represents what the 
husband has to submit to from his talkative wife after they 

1 It must be borne in mind that the divisions I am making between 
“ literary ” and “ non-literary ” works and between those which are on 
and off the subject, are purely arbitrary ones. It is impossible to divide 
the wheat from the tares accurately on either basis, but some attempt 
at classification must be adopted for obvious reasons. Books which 
combine the subject in hand with other interests, as well as those which 
but touch upon it, are discussed in Chapter VI, below. 

2 It is mentioned as such in the Camb. Hist. Eng. Lit., Ill, 138. 

3 The Good Wife was contributed to the 1619 edition of the Happy 
Husband. R.B. is Richard Brathwait. 

4 The dedication of this book is signed T. H., which has been 
taken to stand for Thomas Heywood. 


146 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


have retired for the night, but the former contains also a 
treatise of the ordinary kind on the duties of the wife. The 
frontispiece of each represents a belligerent looking wife 
sitting up in bed and pointing an authoritative finger at 
her husband, who is evidently trying to sleep. From her 
mouth issue the words, 11 Vera praedico,” to which he re¬ 
plies “Mulieri ne credas” The second part of the Curtaine 
Lecture and the entire Ar’t asleepe Husband? are typical 
jest books composed of “all variety of witty jeastes, merry 
tales and other pleasant passages/’ those of the latter claim¬ 
ing the classics, Ariosto, Tasso, Boccaccio, Barclay, and 
others as their sources. The original point of view is lost 
somewhere, as most of the stories are on the characteristics 
of womankind, particularly her failings. Most of them are 
fabliau and exemplum tales; often the vulgar subject matter 
of the former is used with the moral purpose of the latter. 
The dedication to Ar’t asleepe Husband? gives promise of a 
style which is not fulfilled in the book but is perhaps worth 
quoting for itself. It is addressed by the author “To his 
Dainty Doxes.” 

“Dainty fine Creatures, — I will not sweare, in good faith you 
be; But — if in your censure you prove sweet to me, I little care, 
believe’t how sowre you be. One thing I must tell you, the World 
ha’s a strange opinion of you: But let this not trouble you: for 
the most of those that sojourne in it, are Walking Pictures, or 
Puppy Motions. So you live without Scandall, let the Constable 
of the Ward snore, and Diogenes walke all the night o’er with his 
Candle. Though he finde Works of lightnesse in Houses of Dark- 
nesse, Single Skirmishes in blinde Alleys, Backstayres and Long 
Entries: whole bunches of Cornucopia in his new found Europia: 
Cleave you like Ticks to your own, preserve your renowne, and sing 
Hey downe a downe, to the honour of the towne. Thus, neither to 
all, nor to many, but to very-very few, and those of that Crue, who 
are loyall and true, bids Musaeus — Adiew.” 1 

1 Brathwait, op. cit., f. a3. 


CHAPTER V 


CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMAN 
I. Ecclesiastical 

It would be difficult to find in the whole of our period a 
single book of religious or moral nature touching upon woman 
in which it did not appear that she was, if not wholly weak 
and sinful, at least far inferior to man. The more lenient 
writers admitted that there were a few exceptions to this 
rule; but until Puritan ideals came to have some influence,- 
the average characterization represented woman as at best 
but a “necessary evil” for the propagation of the race. “A 
Good Woman (as an old Philosopher observeth) is but like 
one Ele put in a bagge amongst 500 Snakes, and if a man 
should have the luck to grope out that one Ele from all the 
snakes, yet he hath at best but a wet Ele by the Taile; and 
he that wedds himself to one fair and dishonest, he wedds 
himself to a world of misery, and if one beautifull and never 
so Vertuous, yet let him think this he wedds but a woman, 
and therefore a necessary evil.” Bishop Aylmer, in a sermon 
before Queen Elizabeth, admitted that some women were 
superior to some men, but claimed that the majority were 
far otherwise. “Women are of two sorts, some of them are 
wiser, better learned, discreeter, and more constant than 
a number of men; but another and a worse sort of them, 
and the most part, are fond, foolish, wanton flibbergibs, 
tatlers, triflers, wavering, witless, without council, feeble, 
careless, rash, proud, dainty, nice, talebearers, evesdroppers, 
rumour-raisers, evil-tongued, worse-minded, and in every 
way doltified with the dregs of the devil’s dunghill.” 1 The 

1 Neal, I, 478. 


147 


148 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


writer of the Answer to Milton’s first divorce tract thinks to 
crush the argument that marriage was first constituted 
for “solace and comfort in gifts of the mind” by saying that 
if such had been the case, “then it would have been every 
wayes as much, yea more content and solace to Adam; and 
so to every man, to have had another man made to him 
of his Rib in stead of Eve; this is apparent by experience, 
which shews, that man ordinarily exceeds woman in naturall 
gifts of the mind.” 1 The writers who take a more charitable 
view towards womankind usually do so in a tone of conde¬ 
scension resulting from a consciousness of their own supe¬ 
riority. “Man,” says one, “hauing that diuine Image of 
God, and smelling something of the celestiall Carrecter of 
whom he tooke his beginning, is not onely dreadful to the 
moste furious and proudest beastes vppon earthe, but further 
he hath a preheminence and authoritie ouer the woman (a 
creature moste noble nexte to him selfe of all others).” 2 
It would take us too far afield to attempt to account for 
the origin of the conception of the inferiority of woman. 
In the history of evolution, it was doubtless the result of 
her physical weakness. In the sixteenth century, her mental 
inferiority was certainly a result, wherever it existed, of 
the fact that not only had the education of woman been 
wholly neglected in the past, but even in the so-called 
“woman’s sphere,” she was always under the authority and 
direction of her husband. But a still greater inferiority, 
or rather a belief in it, was ascribed to the sex. This was 
moral weakness. There can be no doubt that the belief 
in woman’s physical and mental limitations is far older than 
Christianity, but that she was morally weak seems to be the 
particular contribution of the early church fathers to the 
unjust and undignified conception in which womankind 

1 Answer to Doctrine and Discipline , p. 12. 

2 Chelidonius, A most excellent Hystorie , p. 183. 


CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMAN 149 

was held during the middle ages and later times. This atti¬ 
tude is more important than may at first appear, for the judg¬ 
ment of the church, disseminated through at least the male 
portion of Europe and England, prevented any chance of the 
betterment of woman through education. Thus, by being 
thought weak and fit only to obey, she was robbed of any 
chance of becoming either strong or intelligent. 

The causes of this belief in woman’s lack of moral strength 
in sixteenth century England, connect very closely with the 
interests and movements we have been studying. These 
causes are two: the conception of marriage as merely a 
means of propagating the race and of avoiding promiscuous 
sexual indulgence (particularly on the man’s part), and the 
teachings of the church — drawn chiefly from the book of 
Genesis and the apostles’ commentaries thereupon — that 
it was the woman who by her fall first brought sin into the 
world. 1 It is, perhaps, hardly fair to blame the origin of 
these two doctrines upon the Christian church, as both 
existed to some extent before Christ’s day; but the per¬ 
sistency with which the early church fathers clung to them 
and magnified their importance for the benefit, or detriment, 
of future generations, and the tenacity of the mediaeval 
ecclesiastics’ grasp upon them, despite the fact that they 
are unsupported by the teachings of Christ, render their 
ultimate origin of little or no account. 

We have already seen what was the attitude of the Roman 
Catholic Church towards marriage even as late as Eliza¬ 
beth’s time. 2 This attitude sprang from two related causes, 
the supposed sinfulness of marital intercourse and the evil 
nature of woman. St. Chrysostom speaks of woman as a 
“ necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, 

1 The fact that Adam was made first and Eve second, she from Adam 
but he from divine materials, was also made much of in the case against 
woman. 

2 See above, p. 120 ff. 


150 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


a domestic peril, a deadly fascination and a painted ill.” 1 
But if the nature of woman was one of the ills of the mar¬ 
riage state, conversely the low repute in which marriage was 
held served for centuries to tarnish the reputation of woman. 

The doctrine of woman’s responsibility for the existence 
of sin in the world was well established by Augustine’s 
time; indeed, the book of Genesis would suggest that it 
had existed from the time of its writing, but it seems not to 
have been made much of until the early fathers began their 
textual criticism of the Bible. As a result of Eve’s part in 
the downfall of her noble spouse, many early commentators 
could not conceive the possibility of her possessing a par¬ 
ticle of the divine nature, of which Adam was the human 
personification; and a debate of one thousand years’ dura¬ 
tion ensued over the question of whether or not woman 
possessed a soul. Feminists today may congratulate them¬ 
selves upon their early progenitors, for from the opening of 
this debate at the Council of Macon in 585, when fifty-nine 
bishops took part, the weight of argument seems to have 
continually favored the affirmative. “ Christian women 
were therefore allowed to remain human beings in the eyes 
of the clergy, even though considered very weak and bad 
ones.” 2 Although by the end of the sixteenth century, 
this exalted position was granted to women, they were 
nevertheless held firmly in leash by textual chains, as if 
they were a race of Amazons, who once having bested man 
— in the apple episode — were still likely by some Machia¬ 
vellian policy to accomplish a similar coup d’etat. 

The Bible was ransacked to provide such texts. The 
writings of St. Paul and St. Peter proved to be the most 
profitable mines, the best passage of all being in St. Paul’s 
Epistle to Timothy. 

1 Hill, Women in English Life , I, ix. 

* Gage, Women , Church and State, p. 56. 


CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMAN 151 

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest 
apparel with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broidered hair, 
or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 

“But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good 
works. 

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp the authority 
over the man, but to be in silence. 

“For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 

“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived 
was in the transgression.” 1 

As a sample of what we find over and over on each of these 
texts and many similar ones, we may take a passage from a 
sermon on the last, preached by John Brinsley and after¬ 
wards published (1645) under the title of A Looking-Glasse 
for Good Women. 

“Adam was not deceived, viz. not immediately by the Serpent: 
So was the Woman deceived, giving eare to Satan, speaking in 
and by the Serpent, she was deceived; but so was not Adam de¬ 
ceived: Deceived indeed he was; but it was by means of the 
Woman, handing those suggestions unto him, which she had received 
from the Serpent: withall, soliciting, and inticing him; to whom 
he yielded, partly, Ex amicabili quadam benevolentia, out of a lov¬ 
ing and indulgent affection towards her, and so was overcome, 
even as Sampson was by his Delilah and Solomon by his Wives. 

“These two last Resolutions (being in effect one and the same) 
we may safely pitch upon. Adam was not deceived, viz. so as the 
Woman was deceived: not firstly, not immediately, so was the 
Woman deceived; and being so deceived, she was the Instrument 
to deceive her Husband: So it followeth; But The Woman being 
deceived, she was in the Transgression .” 2 

1 St. Paul, op. cit., II, 9*-14. The first verse still occurs in the 
marriage service of the Church of England. See also St. Paul, I Cor. 
II, 7, and Ephes. V, 22-24; and St. Peter, First Epistle General, III, 1. 

2 Brinsley, op. cit., p. 3. This kind of stuff continues for fifty pages. 


152 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


II. Domestic and Courtly 

The writers of domestic books take practically the same 
attitude towards woman as that held by the church, and 
base their directions for her conduct upon ecclesiastical 
teachings. The most complete brief for the case of the 
Bible vs. Woman that I have seen occurs in a book of this 
type. 

“Two reasons [for woman’s subjection to man] may be given: 
the one from the law of creatio; the other from the law of Penalty, 
following disobedience. For the first, The man (we know) was 
the first created, as a perfect Creature, and not the woman with him 
at the same instant, as we know both sexes of all other Creatures 
were contemporary: not so here. But, after his constitution and 
frame ended, then was she thought of. Secondly, she was not made 
of the same matter with the man equally; but she was made and 
framed of the man. . . . And thirdly, she was made for the mas 
use and benefit, as a meet helper, when no other creature besides 
her was not able to do it. . . . 

“The second warrant hereof is penall. . . . For, since she would 
take upon her as a woman without respect to the order, dependence, 
and use of her creation, to enterprise so sad a business, as to jangle 
and demurre with the divell about so waighty a point as her hus¬ 
bands freehold, and of her own braine to lay him and it under her 
foot, without the least parlee and consent of his ... so that, till she 
had put all beyond question, and past amendment, and eaten, she 
brought not the fruit to him to eate, and so, became a divell to 
tempt him to eate; therefore the Lord strips her of this robe of 
honour, accursing her with this penalty.” 1 

Some writers, not being restrained by Scriptural authority, 
use the subject of domestic life to vent their spleen against 
woman. Thus we sometimes find passages such as the 
following: 2 

1 Rogers, Matrimoniall Honovr, p. 254 ff. 

2 See also quotations below, pp. 163-164. 


CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMAN 153 

“Deponares hauing tasted the martirdomes of marriage, said, 
that there were but two good dayes in all the life of mariage, the 
one was the wedding day, and the other the daye that the woma 
dieth, for that on the day of mariage, there is made good cheare, 
the Bride is fresh and new, and all new things are pleasaunt. . . . 
The other day that he saith is good, is the daye wherein the woman 
dieth, for that the beast being deade, deade is the poyson, and that 
by the death of the woman the husband is out of bondage. In 
confirmation whereof, there is recited a pretie historie of a noble Ro- 
maine, who the day after his mariage . . . was verye pensiue and 
sorowfull, and being demaunded . . . what was ye occasion of 
his sorrow, seeing that his wife was so faire, rich, and come of a 
noble progenie: shewing them his foote, he stretcheth out his leg, 
saying, My friendes, my shooe is newe, faire and well made, but 
you know not where about it doeth hurt and grieue me.” 1 

But although the woman is reminded in the domestic 
book of her inferiority and subserviency to her lord and 
master, it is always recommended that he treat her with 
kindness and honor. Still, even in this view of the hus¬ 
band’s attitude, the wife’s mental and moral weakness is 
not lost sight of. Brinsley says: “A last respect due unto 
the Woman in regard of her weaknesse is . . . giving honour 
unto her. Honour, not as from the inferior to the superior; 
but honour as to the weaker vessel. Which consisteth 
chiefly in three particulars. 1. In hiding their weaknesse. 
2. In defending them against injuries. 3. In providing 
what is meet for them. All these wayes nature teacheth 
us to put honour upon the less honorable parts of the bodie, 
as the Apostle tells us, I Cor. 12.23. And all these wayes 
both Nature and Grace should teach Husbands to give 
honour to their wives.” 2 In return for this good measure 

1 Bouaistuau, Theatrum Mundi , p. 136. The former of these stories 
occurs also in Nixon, The Dignitie of Man, p. Ill; the latter in Milton, 
Doctrine and Discipline, Prose Works, II, 57. 

2 Brinsley, A Looking-Glasse for Good Women, p. 47. 


154 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


of honor, pressed down and overflowing on three separate 
counts, women should look to their husbands “euermore 
to reuerence them, and to endeuour with true obedience 
and loue to serue them, to bee loath in any wise to offend 
them: yea, rather to bee carefull & diligent to please the, yt 
their soule may blesse them. And if . . . the wife shall 
anger or displease her husband . . . she ought neuer to 
rest, vntill shee hath pacified him, and gotten his favour 
againe. And if he shall chance to blame her without a 
cause . . . yet shee must beare it patiently, and giue him 
no vncomely or vnkinde woordes for it: but euermore looke 
vppon him, with a louing and chearefull countenance, and 
so rather let her take the fault vppon her, then seeme to 
bee displeased.” 1 

Although a great deal of attention was given in the do¬ 
mestic books to woman and her duties, practically no books 
were written for the instruction of women alone before the 
first part of the seventeenth century, except such as deal 
with specific subjects, like cookery, dairying, housekeeping, 
etc. Vives’ book, already mentioned, is the chief exception 
here. Among a number of works written for the instruction 
of young people, particularly on the subject of marriage, I 
find only one addressed to girls. This is A goodlie advise 
. . . touching manage by Andrew Kingsmill, a very short 
treatise appended to his A Viewe of mans estate. It was 
written in 1560, but was not published until 1574, after the 
writer’s death. Vives’ Instruction , as translated by Hyrde 
in 1540, is a full treatment of woman from birth to death, 
but contains little that is not to be found in the more general 
books of family life. These, as well as the many so-called 
Catechisms , devote several chapters to the various phases in 
the life of a woman, among which are discussed particularly 
the maid, the married woman, and the widow. Practically 

1 R. C., A Godly Form of Hovseholde Gouernement, p. 214. 


CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMAN 155 

all treat of the first two, some include the third, and some 
add chapters on stepmothers and old women. 

Becon, in his Catechism , has given perhaps the fullest 
account of maidenhood, which is supplemented by a similar 
but shorter discussion on his Boke of Matrimony. The 
former gives nine duties to be observed by maids. 1 First, 
they must fear and serve God. Secondly, they must obey 
their parents. Thirdly, they should avoid idleness, “out 
of ye which springeth all mischefe, as pride, slouthfulnesse, 
banketting, dronkenshyp, whoredome, adoultry, vain com¬ 
munication, bewraying of secretes, cursed speakings &c. to 
auoid these pestilences, it shall become honest and vertuous 
maides to geue them selues to honest and vertuous exercises, 
to spinning, to carding, to weauing, to sowing, to washing, 
to wringing, to sweping, to scouring, to bruing, to bakinge, 
and to all kinde of labors withoute exception, that become 
maides.” Fourthly, besides idleness, maids must eschew 
“the runninge about vnto vain spectacles, games, pastimes, 
playes, enterludes &c.” Fifthly, “forasmuch as nothing 
doth so greatly hinder ye good name and fame of maids, as 
keeping copany with naughty packs, & persos of a dissolute 
& wanton life, . . . therefore shal it be requisite that al godly 
maids do refrain theselues from keping copany with light, 
vain & wanton persons: whose delite is in fleshly and filthy 
pastimes, as singing, dauncing, leaping, skipping, playinge, 
kissing, whoring &c.” Sixthly, “that they be not full of 
tonge, and of much babling. . . . Except the grauity of 
some matter do require, that she should speak: or els an 
answer is to be made ... let her kepe silence. For there 
is nothinge that doth so much commend, auaunce, setforthe, 
adourne, decke, trim, and garnish a maid, as silence.” 
Seventhly, “forasmuch as maides no les then yonge menne 
after they come ones to xiiii yeres of age, are so desirous to 

1 Becon, Worckes, Pt. I, f. cccccxxxi ff. 


156 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


be maried, . . . notwithstanding suche vntimely mariages 
are not to be commended ... it shalbe conuenient for al 
honest maides, if they tender the health and coseruation 
of their bodies . . . that they labor to the vttermost of 
their power to suppresse that luste and desire in them.” 
Eighthly, “seeinge that . . . maides desyre nothinge so 
greatly as galante apparell, and sumptuous raiment . . . 
it shall not be vnfytting, that all honest and godly disposed 
maydes cotent them selues with comely and semely apparell 
. . . according to the doctrine of the gospell.” Finally, 
when they come to marry, they should “presume not to 
take in hand so graue, waighty and earnest matter, nor 
entangle them selues with the loue of anye parson, before 
they haue made their parents, tutors, frendes, or suche as 
haue gouernaunce of them priuye of their entent, yea and 
also require their both councel and consent in the matter.” 
This set of rules is perhaps the fullest given anywhere, but 
most of them occur more briefly stated in other similar 
books. One thing which Becon omits but which is par¬ 
ticularly interesting, is the warning sometimes given to 
young girls against reading “naughtie ballets” and “vaine 
romances.” Vives has the fullest list of the latter, which 
he calls ungracious and full of filthiness: “in Spaine, imo- 
dise, Florisande, Tirante, Tristane, and Celestina; . . .*_ : n 
France, Lancelot du Lake, Paris & Vienna, Ponthus and 
Sidonia, and Melucine; in Flanders, Flori and White Flower, * 
Leonel and Cenamour, Curias and Floret, Primus and Thisbe; 
in England, Parthenope, Genarides, Hippomadon, William 
and Melyour, Libius and Arthur, Guy, Beuis, and many 
others.” 1 

1 Vives, Instruction, f.D. Vives is a forerunner of Cervantes in the 
ridicule he heaps upon such romances. He says: “What delight can 
there bee in those thinges that be so plaine and foolish lies? One killeth 
twenty himselfe alone, another killeth thirty, another wounded with a 


CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMAN 157 

The duties of the married woman have already been set 
forth to some extent and require no more than a brief 
summary here. Besides obedience and submission to her 
husband, those most frequently mentioned are: chaste 
living, the avoidance of gaudy apparel, jewels, and cosmetics, 
the ordering of the household so far as its master allowed 
her control, the suckling of her babies, and some part in the 
teaching of her children. How far she had authority within 
the house is a point upon which there seems to have been 
no definite expression, and it was doubtless thought of and 
practised as a personal matter between the individual 
husband and wife . 1 Becon comes as near as any to a definite 
statement, where, in a passage describing the things a young 
girl should learn for her future service in life, he enumerates 
“spinning, cardinge, weuing, sowing, milking, chese, and 
butter making, gouerning of an house, dressing of meate 
and drink, and such like.” Without these acquirements, 
Becon continues, “all beauty, favour, personage, nobilitye 
richesse, galant aparel, and whatsoeuer can be reckned more 
wherein wome do most of al glory, is nothinge else, then a 

hundred woundes, and left dead, riseth vp againe, and on the next 
day made whole and strong, ouercommeth two Gyants and then goeth 
away loaden with gold and siluer, and pretious stones, mo the a Gaily 
would carry away. What madnes is it in folkes, to haue pleasure in 
these books? Also there is no wit in them, but a few wordes of wanton 
lust: which be spoken to mooue her minde with whome they loue, if it 
chance she is stedfast. . . . Nor I neuer heard man say that he liked 
these bookes: but those that neuer touched good books. And I my 
selfe sometime haue read in them, but I neuer found in them one 
steppe either of goodnesse or wit.” Ibid., D b. 

Bullinger, on the same subject, says: “[the books of] Robyn Hode/ 
Beues of Hampton/ Troilus/ & such lyke fables do but kyndle in lyers 
lyke lyes and wanton loue/ whyche ought not in yought wyth theyr 
fyrst spettle to be dronke in/ lest they euer remayne in them.” Christen 
state, f. Ixxv6. 

Ascham’s disapproval of the literature of romance is well known. 

1 But see p. 237, n. 1, below. 


158 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


ringe in a swines snowte.” 1 No wonder Vives says, “Great 
sadness of behauiour and arayment is required in a wife.” 

The widow was given less attention in the domestic book 
than either the maid or the married woman, and her duties 
may be briefly stated. If she was old, she should “be 
occupyed aboute matters of God and about busynesses of 
the congregation”; if young, she should keep out of trouble. 
The belief that a young widow was more attractive and in 
greater danger from men than a maid, seems to go back to 
St. Paul’s time; but whether this attitude in the sixteenth 
(as well as in the twentieth) century is entirely the result 
of the apostle’s teachings or is founded upon fact, is a ques¬ 
tion that we cannot go into here. At any rate, according 
to Vives, a young widow should lead a cloistered life, and 
if she went abroad at all, she should be accompanied by 
“some good and sad woman” and should avoid the company 
of men, especially friars and priests. On the other hand, 
some writers, following the advice of St. Paul to young 
widows, would have them marry again as soon as possible 
and thus avoid the “daunger of everlasting damnation” — 
it being thought practically impossible for a young widow 
to live chaste — “for how lyghte, vayne, trifeling, unhonest, 
unhousewifelike, younge widowes haue ben in all ages, and 
are also at this present day, experience doth sufficiently 
declare.” 2 It is interesting to note that of the seven chap¬ 
ters given by Vives to the subject of the widow, three are 
devoted to her behavior towards her deceased husband. 

The references above to woman in her various spheres, to 
her relation to man, and to the attitude of at least the re¬ 
ligiously-minded towards her, represent one side of the pic- 

1 Becon, Wor ekes, Pt. I, f. DCLxxvi b. See also the list given in the 
Catechism, p. 155, above. 

2 Ibid, f. cccccxxix. Cf. the widow in Dunbar’s Tua Maryit 
wemen and the wedo (see below, pp. 164-165). 


CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMAN 159 

ture of woman of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 
I have gone into this in some detail as this point of view 
seems to have been neglected heretofore and to be at present 
quite overshadowed by the numerous discussions of the 
Renaissance idea of woman, which predominated among 
the courtly writers of Elizabeth’s reign. The influence of 
Platonism as revamped in the Italian Renaissance is well 
enough known to obviate the necessity of my discussing it 
further . 1 Indeed, it is quite too well known, for students 
of the period, being saturated with the conception of 
woman as found in Italian literature and Italian court 
life and among the imitators of both in England, seem not 
to have realized sufficiently that woman as here portrayed 
is as fictitious as the love expressed for her in the average 
Petrarchistic sonnet. We should fall into a similar error 
were we to maintain, on the other hand, that the books we 
have been examining represent the true state of man’s 
regard for woman, and that the Platonistic poetry and 
Cortegiano type of prose writing represent mere conventional¬ 
ized dreams of fair women. Each attitude, we may say 
now, was a pose, the one resulting from the authority of the 
Scriptures, and the other from that of Plato and the Italian 
Renaissance. How sincere the writers in these two fields 
were, it is difficult to say; but at least it is safe to believe 
that each school was to some extent true to an imagination 
ingrown upon dogmas that seemed to express actual life, 
although the authors themselves may not have been fortu¬ 
nate, or unfortunate, enough to have so experienced it, 
except perhaps momentarily. In many cases, however, 
the writer must have been conscious, at least at times, that 
he was a hypocrite and that his productions were mere 
vapories of an over-religious or an over-sentimental state of 

1 For a treatment of this subject, see Einstein, The Italian Renais¬ 
sance in England . 


160 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


mind. The spectacle of John Donne, for instance, on Sunday 
preaching the subjection and inferiority of woman to a 
newly married couple, and on Monday apotheosizing his 
mistress in extragavant metaphors, will hardly tempt the 
fair-minded reader to accept him as a trustworthy witness 
for either the prosecution or the defense of womankind . 1 
Similarly, John Knox, who denounced women as “weak, 
frail, impatient, feeble, foolish, inconstant, variable, and 
lacking the spirit of council,” was twice married, was all 
his life surrounded by women, was co-respondent in the 
alienation of Mrs. Bowes from her husband and twelve 
children, and was accustomed to write in letters to those 
absent such sentiments as, “Dear sister, if I should express 
the thirst and langour which I have had for your presence, 
I should appear to pass measure. . . . Yea, I weep and 
rejoice in remembrance of you.” 2 And Milton represents 
not only the popular ideal of woman in Paradise Lost but also 
the Petrarchistic one in his sonnets to the ladies of his Italian 
journey; and despite the difficulty he describes in his divorce 
tract of choosing a “sweet conversing soul,” seems to have 
been unable to live without at least some makeshift for 
such a mate. The point here is more important than may 
at first appear, as it results in obliging us to accept only 
cum magno grano satis the testimony of all who have any 
axe to grind, be it sentimental, religious, or otherwise. 

III. Commendation and Satire 

However insincere the attitudes of moralists and courtiers 
towards women may have been, it is clear that the reign 
of Elizabeth did a great deal in awakening serious men to 

1 Donne himself in early life made a clandestine marriage with 
Anne More and was dismissed from office as a result. 

2 Stevenson, John Knox and his Relations to Women , in Familiar 
Studies of Men and Books , p. 383. The whole essay is instructive. 


\ 


CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMAN 161 

the importance of woman and her sphere. We find examples 
of books illustrating this fact as early as the middle of the 
century, as in the case of David Clapham’s translation of 
Agrippa’s De Nobilitate & Praecellentia Foeminei Sexus, 
in 1542, Thomas Elyot’s Defense of good women , in 1545, 
William Bercher’s Nobylytie off Wymen, in 1559, and two 
poems, Gosynhyll’s The Prayse of all women, called Mulierum 
paean, in 1541, and Edward More’s Defense of women, in 
1560. But not until the beginning of the next century 
does there seem to have been anything like a development 
of a literature in praise of woman or in exposition of her 
affairs. A book quite similar to Elyot’s, except that it is 
not in dialogue form, is A Womans Woorth, defended against 
all the men of the world, “proouing them to be more perfect, 
excellent, and absolute in all vertuous actions than any 
man of what qualitie soeuer.” The title page also informs 
us that the work is by “one that hath heard much, seen 
much, but knowes a great deal more”; and the dedication 
is signed by Anthony Gibson, who says that he has trans¬ 
lated the treatise from the French of a “friend and fellow 
servant to her Majesty.” This book was published in 1599. 
Among the books of less pretentious titles but more utilitarian 
character and greater real worth, may be mentioned The 
Excellency of good women, in 1613, and My Ladies Looking 
Glasse, in 1616, both by Barnaby Rich, Thomas Heywood’s 
Nine Bookes of Various History concerninge Women, 1624, and 
Nine the Most Worthy Women of the World, 1640, B rath- 
wait’s The English Gentlewoman, 1631, T. E.’s The Lawes 
Resolvtions of Womens Rights, 1632, and Samuel Torshell’s 
The Womans Glorie, 1645. 

A word will suffice for each of these. The first of Rich’s 
two small books is sufficiently described by its subtitles — 
“The honour and estimation that belongeth vnto them, 
The infallible markes whereby to know them.” The Look - 


162 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


ing Glasse is merely one of the many books on the evils and 
immorality of the time, and deals as much with men as 
with women.- Thomas Heywood shows his interest in 
woman both in his plays and in the books before us. The 
Various History is a folio volume of 466 pages, divided into 
nine books on various feminine types, the first eight of which 
contain histories and anecdotes of particular women of 
fame, almost all from ancient history, and several essays 
of a general nature on woman and her characteristics. The 
ninth book is made up entirely of such essays. The volume 
on the whole is a veritable storehouse of historical, tradi¬ 
tionary, and fictitious stories, and contains a considerable 
amount of verse both original and translated. It does not, 
however, throw much light upon the contemporary English 
woman. The Nine Most Worthy Women presents history 
only, in the form of the lives of three famous Jews — 
Deborah, Judith, and Esther; three Gentiles — Boadicea, 
Penthesilaea, and Artimesia; and three Christians — 
Elphreda (daughter of Alfred the Great), Margaret (wife 
of Henry VI), and Queen Elizabeth. The Lawes Resolvtions 
by the unknown T. E. 1 is entirely a legal work, and although 
uninteresting for us, is particularly important in showing 
the increased recognition of woman’s position in civil affairs. 
It is a thorough treatise of her rights before the law. The 
Womans Glorie is an ordinary conduct book for women, 
her “glorie” consisting in properly filling her part in the 
family. Brathwait’s English Gentlewoman represents the 
culmination of the writing upon women. It is a book of 
some 240 pages devoted entirely to feminine interests. Its 
chapters treat separately apparel, behavior, complement, 
decency, education, fancy, gentility, and honor. From 
these headings it may be seen that the work is a general 
one of manners and conduct rather than, like Vives’ In¬ 
struction, one concerned with the different stages and con- 
1 The British Museum Catalogue suggests Thomas Edwards. 


CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMAN 163 

ditions of woman’s life. Mention is made of Vives’ book 
and also of Erasmus, from which fact, as well as from the 
recurrence of certain anecdotes, we may believe that Brath- 
wait knew to some extent the domestic books of the period. 
He mentions also the Italian type of courtier and lady, and 
shows himself familiar with the Italian point of view by 
ridiculing the contemporary love poetry. Although he is 
a little too much saturated with the ecclesiastical idea of 
female humility, advising the gentlewoman that “the way 
for you to ascend is first to descend,” he presents on the 
whole a very sane picture of woman as she should be, and 
one not greatly different from the English ideal of today. 

Despite these books in commendation of the gentle sex, 
less complimentary writing continued, reminiscent of the time 
when woman figured in literature principally as the object 
of satire. In 1637, an anonymous writer says: “In turn¬ 
ing over the leaves of some both moderne and foreigne writers, 
I have met with so many satyricall invectives aimed directly 
against it [the feminine sex] and some of them so pathetically 
bitter, that I am halfe perswaded they had forgot them¬ 
selves to have been borne of mothers.” 1 It may have been 
this author’s misfortune to have run across A Discovrse of 
the Married and Single Life , or Hercules Tasso’s part of 
Of Manage and Wiuing. Both of these treatises, like 
Bansley’s Pryde and abuse of women (1540-50), are such 
diatribes against womankind that one is inclined to class 
them with those Torquato Tasso speaks of as “too too ridic¬ 
ulous.” The parting shot from the former is, “Yet let mee 
aduise thee, that with thine eyes shut, thy nose stopt, thy 
fist closed, & thy stomack armed, thou will take thy wife 
as a medicine of Rubarbe.” 2 Hercules Tasso concludes: 

“ (Friend) marry when thou please, yet thou shalt find 
Thy wife bad alwaies, and but vse her ill 

1 A Curtaine Lecture , p. 5. 

2 Op. cit., p. 115. 


164 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


And she is worse, but vse her well and kind 
She is worser then, and so continue will: 

Yet is she good (if she but once would die) 

But better, if she packt before thy selfe, 

But best of all, if she went speedily, 

Leauing behind to thee her hoorded wealth.” 1 

But neither these two books nor others of similar nature 
can be called satire; they are invective pure and simple. 
Nevertheless, there was satire on the subject of woman, 
especially the married woman, just as there had been ever 
since Chaucer’s day and before that. This is found every¬ 
where except in religious books and prosaic household direct¬ 
ories, such as many we have been studying. The origin 
of the genre, which was contemporary with Chaucer, seems 
to have been in France and took the form of warnings against 
marriage, as in such a piece as Les quinze joyes des Manage , 
which afterwards became the groundwork for Dekker’s 
Bachelars Banquet. Chaucer himself, although inclined 
to poke fun at the sex, was certainly on the side of its defense 
in the so-called marriage group of the Canterbury Tales. 
His successor, Douglas, said of him that he “was ever, Got 
wait, wemenis friend,” and it is reasonable to believe that 
his attitude in the tales told in reply to the Wife of Bath 
and in the Legend of Good Women was a sincere one. Never¬ 
theless, Chaucer’s championing of woman partook some¬ 
what of the nature of a weather-cock on a gusty day. The 
Wife of Bath is representative of a succession of female Blue¬ 
beards, of whom she may have been the prototype. The 
boke of Mayd Emlyn, c. 1530, contains the most extended 
portrait of such a character, to whom may be likened the 
adventuress in the Twelve mery gestys of one called Edyth 
and the widow in Dunbar’s The Tua Maryit wemen and the 
wedo. Married life came in for more direct satire in ballads 


1 Tasso, op. tit., f. G4. 


CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMAN 165 

such as A Complaynt of them that he to soone maryed, The 
Payne and sorowe of euyll Mary age, and many from the pro¬ 
lific pen of Martin Parker, as well as in a few less ephemeral 
works like Dunbar's Tua Maryit wemen. In the whole of 
this group, the satire on women is incidental to the accounts 
of married life and the warnings against it. Dunbar’s 
poem, like The Schole-howse of women , written in reply to 
Gosynhyll’s Prayse of all women, presents marriage and its 
hardships entirely from the woman’s point of view. In the 
former, the widow advises the afflicted wives, after listening 
to their tales of woe, to make the best of their bad bargains 
by consoling themselves, as she had done, with “othir 
bachilleris blyth blumyng in youth in the latter, a dialogue 
between an old gossip and a young wife, the elder, while 
appearing to council her friend in regard to her sufferings, 
plays Job’s comforter by reciting the evils and weaknesses 
of womankind, with illustrations drawn from history and 
current jest-books. In the years 1560 to 1570, there was 
quite an outburst, which seems to have abated thereafter, 
of satirical poems against the married woman — The Proude 
Wyves Paternoster, An hundred poyntes of evell huswrifrye, 
A Commyssion unto all those whose wyves he thayr masters , 
A Shrewde and Curste Wyfe lapped in Morrelles skin, and 
others — but these contribute little that is new to the type. 1 

In all these would-be satires, in which the weapon em¬ 
ployed is the bludgeon rather than the rapier, we find that, 
just as the courtier pretended to regard woman as the queen 
of love and beauty, and the sanctimonious writer looked upon 
her as the handmaid of the devil, or at best as a weak and 
sinning specimen of human kind, so the satirist assumed 
a conventional point of view and portrayed her from that 
aspect. The two things which women had been especially 

1 For further account and bibliography of satire against women, 
see Camb. Hist. Eng. Lit., II, 437 ff., Ill, 98 ff. and 551 ff. 


166 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


instructed to do, from the time of St. Paul onward, were 
to be subservient to their husbands and to avoid costly 
raiment. 1 Whether or not these warnings caused women 
to do exactly the opposite, so that the satire was directed 
against actual conditions, we cannot say, though one is in¬ 
clined to doubt very much if such were the case; at any rate, 
these two points furnish the casus belli for by far the greater 
part of the satire against woman. Of course, her other 
occasional attributes were not neglected, such as jealousy, 
especially in the case of a woman married the second time, 
her propensity for continuous talking, her extravagance, 
her love of pleasure, her temper. It is noteworthy, too, 
that as St. Paul’s words were directed against married women, 
so the satire is chiefly at their expense. Chaucer’s Wife of 
Bath is an excellent example of these points. She had been 
married five times, having mastered the life and death of 
each of her husbands, she flaunted her gaudy apparel and 
lewd personality in the faces of her fellow pilgrims, and she 
told a story illustrative of woman’s desire for sovereignty. 

“Women desyren to have sovereyntee 
As wel over hir housbond as hir love 
And for to been in maistrie him above.” 2 

Descendants of the Wife of Bath may be found in English 
literature without break throughout Elizabethan times and 
beyond. In the middle of the century, “Walter Wedlocke” 
thus slyly defends woman’s love of sovereignty: 

“Surely the prehiminence that wyues doth couette at theyr 
husbands handes by vertue of that humour is none other, but onele 
to haue lybertie in three kynde of thynges, which is, to saye what 
they wyll, to haue what they wyll, and to do what they wyl, wherin 

1 These two warnings, hardly changed from their original Biblical 
phraseology, to this day form part of the marriage ceremony of the 
Church of England. 

2 Chaucer, Wife of Bath’s Tale 1. 182. 


CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMAN 167 

you know the husbande maye easely bere with them, and surely 
doyng so, they are the most quyet and comfortablest creatures, 
that euer were ordeyned for man.” 1 

Before the introduction of the Italian and Spanish fashions 
in clothes, the greater part of both serious and frivolous 
writing against woman was directed towards preserving 
her subserviency and condemning her attempts at sover¬ 
eignty. At this time, the only satire entirely against female 
attire that I have found was Lindsay’s Syde Taillis; but with 
the coming of foreign and exaggerated styles of dress and 
the greater attention given to clothes by both men and 
women, satirical writing on such love of display received 
a fresh and powerful stimulus. 

Despite the works discussed above, the greater part of 
the satire against women, especially in the latter half of the 
century, was incidental to some other piece of work, as it 
had been earlier in the case of the writings of Chaucer and 
John Heywood. For this reason, it is impossible to trace 
its history more closely here. At the beginning of the 
seventeenth century, running parallel with other writing 
on the subject of women, we find the genre coming to life 
again, and here the foibles of dress are dealt with to a far 
greater extent than formerly. Gosson’s Pleasant Quippes 
for Upstart Newfangled Gentlewomen , in 1595, is a case in 
point, the title page of which describes it as a satirical poem 
against the “fantastical foreign Toyes day lie used in Women’s 
Apparell.” Dekker’s The Bachelors Banquet , in 1603, 
is more inclusive, exhibiting the “humours” of women of 
different types and in different situations. This is the 
most thorough satirical treatment of women that I know 
of. The drama, in such plays as The Taming of the Shrew, 
The Silent Woman, and others, contributed its quota. The 

1 Wedlocke, Image of Idlenesse, f. Ei b. 


168 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


years 1615-1620 saw two controversies on the subject. 
One was started by Joseph Swetnam 1 with The Araign- 
merit of Lewde, idle, froward, and vnconstant women, in 1615, 
which was answered in 1616 by the anonymous Asylum 
Veneris, or a Sanctuary for Ladies, etc., in 1617 by Constantia 
Munda 2 with The Worming of a mad Dogge: or, a Soppe for 
Cerberus the Iayl&r of Hell, by Ester Sowernam 2 with Ester 
hath hang'd Haman, etc., by Rachel Speght with A Mouzellfor 
Melastomus, the Cynicall Bayter of, andfoule mouthed Barker 
against Evahs sex, and in 1620 by an anonymous comedy 
entitled Swetnam the woman-hater, arraigned by women. 
The replies are, of course, in defense of the sex. There is 
much humor in Swetnam’s little book, and its popularity 
was great. Of the jealousy of women married a second 
time, he tells this story: 

“Another [man] hauing married a widdow, and within a while 
after they were married, she went out into the garden, and there 
finding her husbands shirt hang close on the hedge by her maides 
smock, she went presently and hanged herselfe for a iealous conceit 
that she tooke, and a merry fellow asked the cause why she hanged 
herselfe, and being tolde it was for iealousie: I would said he that 
all trees did beare such fruit.” 3 

The second little passage of arms on the subject consisted 
of one book against women and two replies. These are: 
Hie Mvlier: or, the Man-Woman; Being a Medicine to cure 
the Coltish Disease of the Staggers in the Masculine-Fem¬ 
inines of our Time; Haec-Vir; or, The Womanish Man.- 
Being an Answere to a late Booke intitulit Hic-Mulier; and 
Muld Sacke: or The Apologie of Hic-Mulier: To the late 
Declamation against her. All three books are anonymous 
and give the impression of being by the same writer. Muld 

1 Swetnam issued his book under the name of Thomas Tel truth, but 
his identity was known to the writers of the answers. 

2 Constantia Manda and Ester Sowernam are probably fictitious 
names. 

3 Swetman, op. cit., p. 63. This is an old tale. 


CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMAN 169 


Sacke is dated 1620, and the other two are probably of the 
same year or very shortly before. The first is against the 
mannish woman; the second, being a dialogue, cuts both 
ways; the third is principally against foppish men. 1 There 
is not much wit in any of them — more invective than 
satire. There is good satire in the two jest-books above 
mentioned, A Curtaine Lecture , 1637, and Ar’t asleepe 
Husband?, 1640; but space forbids further discussion of 
this subject. 

IV. Historical and General View 

In attempting to formulate an opinion of woman’s posi¬ 
tion in Elizabeth’s time, we shall get a fairer and more 
fundamental view by examining historical and biographical 
facts than by studying the writings of moralists, lovers, and 
satirists. These writers are helpful in furnishing detail 
and color to the picture and in distinguishing individuals 
from the mass, but history will give us a clearer idea of the 
general character of the woman of the day, to which the 
minor features, in one case or another, are to be attached. 
For whether the individual was a household drudge, a queen 
of love, or a Wife of Bath, she was first of all a woman, 
and as the philosopher characteristically observed, “but a 
woman.” 

There can be no doubt that previous to Elizabeth’s reign 
woman was considered a very inferior creature. The neglect 
of her education, the conditions of marriage and divorce, 
the piggishness of the average home, and the scarcity of 
women of ability and prominence, all put this fact beyond 

1 The womanish man became an object of satire, as in Decker’s 
Gulls Hornbook as a result of Italian foppery of dress and manners, in 
the same way as did the woman. A good deal of such satire was carried 
on in the drama, as in the case of the comedies of Jonson, Middleton, 
Marston and Field. 


170 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


question. But conditions for the betterment of the sex 
began long before this time. Henry III was a great patron 
of the home and was influential in improving housing condi¬ 
tions. 1 Henry IV showed his interest in womankind by 
extolling the writings of Christine de Pisan, the well known 
champion of woman, and inviting her to his court. The 
works of Juliana Berners, the first English literary woman 
of fame, were widely read. Thomas More was a believer in 
female education, taking his ideas from Italy, and his 
daughters were said by Vives to “perfectly fulfill all the 
points of a good woman.” 2 Queen Catherine, the wife of 
Henry VIII, after the abominable treatment she received 
at the hands of her royal spouse, became a national heroine 
in the eyes of those not under the King’s thumb. 3 Before 
Elizabeth’s reign, and to a greater extent during it, Italian 
books were imported, translated, and imitated, Italian 
architecture was introduced, Italian culture and court life 
were adopted as far as possible, and the Renaissance homage 
was paid, whether sincerely or not, to the women of nobility 
as well as to many others. 

These facts are well known. Two others are worthy of 
attention. The one is the new and higher attitude toward 
marriage, as taught by the Reformers of Germany and their 
followers in England, particularly the Puritans, which has 

1 For early housing conditions and Henry Ill’s patronage of archi¬ 
tecture, see Sparrow, The English House, chaps. II and VII, respectively. 

2 Vives, Instruction, f. C5. 

3 Speaking of her, Vives says: “If suche incredible vertue hadde 
fortuned then, when honor was the rewarde of vertue, thys woma had 
dusked the brightnesse of the Heroes, and as a diuine thynge and a 
godlye sente downe from heauen, had bene prayed vnto in temples, 
although she lacke no teples, for there can not be erected vnto her a 
more ample or a more magnificente temple then that, the whiche euery 
man among al nations marueylinge at her vertues, haue in theyr owne 
heartes buylded and erected.” Office and duetie, f. Eiiii. 


CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMAN 171 


been sufficiently set forth in a previous chapter. 1 It is very 
doubtful whether the average man had ever undertaken 
matrimony for the two causes originally sanctioned by the 
church, — the begetting of children and the avoidance of 
sexual sin — but the ecclesiastical recognition among Prot¬ 
estant sects of the possibility of woman’s occupying a higher 
position in matrimonial society than that of a mere instru¬ 
ment for carnal desires, is important in marking the begin¬ 
ning of the end of the degradation she had suffered at the 
hands of the church. The attempts to put woman on the 
same footing as man in matters of divorce, although un¬ 
successful, show also a tendency to regard her as an equal 
partaker with him in the state of wedlock. Nevertheless, 
despite these facts, the church as a whole consistently main¬ 
tained the inferiority of woman and sought to instil into her 
an entire submission and obedience to her husband in all 
family affairs. 2 Moreover, wife beating continued to be 
practised under the sanction of the law. 3 

The second important factor in raising woman’s position 
was Elizabeth herself. It will be remembered that the 
Reformers in England had been persecuted and driven into 
exile by Queen Mary. John Knox and his congregation 
had also been proscribed in Scotland by Regent Mary of 
Guise. The bitter opposition to the Reformers by Mary 
Tudor, Mary of Guise, and Catherine de’ Medici in France, 
together with the fact that female rule in Europe was pretty 
generally considered an anomaly, led Knox to start a con¬ 
troversy against woman rulers in general. In accordance 
with the Biblical teaching already noted that women should 

1 See above, p. 120 ff. 

2 The marriage sermons of John Donne (Works, vol. IV) are excellent 
examples of the changing yet conservative attitude of the time on this 
subject. 

3 For discussion of this subject and writing thereupon, see Jeaffre- 
son, Brides and Bridals , I, 317 ff 


172 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


not hold positions of authority over men, 1 he attacked all 
queens in a pamphlet entitled The first Blast of the Trumpet 
against the Monstrous Regiment of Women , which was not 
long in “ wakening all the echoes of Europe.” But unfor¬ 
tunately for him, Queen Mary, against whom it was prin¬ 
cipally written, died the year of its publication, Elizabeth 
came to the throne as a patron of Protestancy, and the exiles 
on the continent trooped back to England to live under the 
protection of their female champion. This put Knox in 
an awkward situation. In addition, John Aylmer, after¬ 
wards Bishop of London, replied to the Scotchman’s pam¬ 
phlet with An Harhorwe for faithfull and trewe Suhjectes 
against the late hloune Blaste, etc. 2 The result of this con¬ 
troversy, which was more extended than the brief note 
here indicates, 3 was that Elizabeth secured more firmly 
than ever her place in the hearts of the people as a defender 
of the faith and a Portia come to judgment, and Knox was 
reduced to the ignominious position of having to eat his 
own words and swear allegiance. This he not only did, 
but showed in addition, by a series of textual quibbles, that 
his pamphlet did not attack Elizabeth’s supremacy at all. 

Besides appearing as a champion of Protestancy, although 
a bitter enemy to its more radical sects, Elizabeth occupied 
a position in literary England similar to that of Laura in 
the eyes of Petrarch or Beatrice in those of Dante. Even 
after her death poets and prose writers continued extravagant 
praise of her. Thomas Heywood writes in 1640: 

“As the most famous Painter of his Time, Apelles, to frame the 
picture of one Venus, had at once exposed to his view an hundred 

1 St. Paul, I Tim. II, 12. 

2 Aylmer is another example of the inconsistency of writers on 
women. See his opinion of the sex expressed above, p. 147. 

* For full discussion of this controversy, see Stevenson, John Knox 
and his Relations to Women. 


CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMAN 173 

of the most choyce and exquisite Virgins, of Greece, to take from 
one the smoothest brow, from a second, the most sparkling eye, 
[etc.] ... so in the accurate expression of this rare Heroicke 
Elizabeth, should I peruse all the ancient, and Authenticke Histo¬ 
ries, and out of them select the lives of the most vertuous Ladyes, 
for their rare and admirable endowments . . . (whether Piety, 
or Virginall purity; Beauty, and Bounty; Majesty, and mag¬ 
nanimity; Language, and learning; polliticke Governement, or 
practice of goodnesse; pitty of forraigne distressed nations, or 
indulgence over her owne Natives, &c.) Nay, what praecelling 
vertue soever, was commendable in any one particular, or all in 
general, may, without flattery be justly conferred on her.” 1 

Nor were other ladies of fashion and attainments lacking. 
The three daughters of Sir Anthony Coke were as accom¬ 
plished as Elizabeth herself, and surpassed her in marrying 
brilliantly, one becoming the mother of Francis Bacon. 
The classical learning of Lady Jane Grey is commented upon 
by Roger Ascham, who discovered her one day reading 
Plato in the original. Jane, Countess of Westmorland, the 
daughter of John Fox, was said to bear comparison with 
the greatest scholars of the age. Dorothy Leigh, one of 
the few woman writers of the time, published a volume, 
The Mother’s Blessing, dedicated to Elizabeth, which ran 
to fourteen editions by 1629. Mary Sidney, afterwards the 
famous Countess of Pembroke, held a “ court of love and 
learning” at Wilton Place, like those at Urbino and Ferrara, 
where many of the leading literary men of the day were to 
be found. She was probably the most thorough and most 
Italianate lady of Elizabethan England. But these women 
represent only the aristocracy of the country, and it seems 
to have been a principle of the age that such ladies might 
enjoy some privileges forbidden their humbler sisters. 2 

1 Heywood, Most Worthy Women, p. 184. 

2 “Thus,” says Stevenson, “Margaret of Navarre wrote books 
with great acclamation, and no one, seemingly, saw fit to call her con- 


174 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


Moreover, one is inclined to distrust the roseate light 
with which these “great ladies” were surrounded by their 
admirers. The historian would hardly recognize Elizabeth 
from Heywood’s picture of her or from Spenser’s Gloriana 
or Lyly’s Cynthia. The same may be said of the innumer¬ 
able goddess-like mistresses of the time. Carew’s Coelia 
appears as real in To a Strumpet, 1 when the poet lost his 
temper and exhausted his vituperative power, as she does 
in A Rapture, when she consented to “be kind.” And at 
the other end of the scale from the sonnet sequences and 
similar poetry in praise of women, we have such malicious 
diatribes against the sex as have already been mentioned. 
Nevertheless, the position of women of learning and culture 
and the homage paid them, as well as the idealization of the 
less worthy members of society, cannot have failed to con¬ 
tribute in raising the general estimate of woman considerably 
above that of preceding periods. 

The letters of foreigners furnish excellent evidence of the 
position of the English woman of the time. Many speak of 
her beauty, her charm, and her lavishness of dress; and 
although the subserviency of the wife to the husband is 
remarked upon, it seems agreed that she was allowed greater 
freedom than in other countries. Indeed, a popular saying 
on the continent was, “England is a paradise for women, a 

duct in question; but Mademoiselle de Gournay, Montaigne’s adopted 
daughter, was in controversy with the world as to whether a woman 
might be an author without incongruity. Thus, too, we have Theodore 
Agrippa d’AubignS writing to his daughters about the learned women 
of his century, and cautioning them in conclusion, that the study of 
letters was unsuited to ladies of middling station and should be re¬ 
served for princesses. And once more, ... we shall find . . . the 
Abbot of Brantome claiming ... a privilege, or rather a duty, of 
free love for great princesses, and carefully excluding other ladies from 
the same gallant dispensation.” Familiar Studies, p. 332. 

1 Printed only in my article on Carew, Mod. Lang. Rev., July, 1916, 
and there only in part. 


CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMAN 175 

prison for servants, and a hell for horses.” One writer says, 
“The women there are charming, and by nature so mighty 
pretty, as I have scarcely ever beheld, for they do not falsify, 
paint or bedaub themselves as in Italy and other places; 
but they are somewhat awkward in their style of dress; for 
they dress in splendid stuffs, and many a one wears three 
cloth gowns or petticoats, one over the other.” 1 The writer 
here was evidently fortunate in his acquaintances, as there 
is abundant evidence that the English woman was quite 
accustomed to falsify, paint, and bedaub herself after the 
Italian fashion. A Dutchman gives us a fuller account: 
“Although the women there are entirely in the power of 
their husbands except for their lives, yet they are not kept 
so strictly as they are in Spain or elsewhere. Nor are they 
shut up but they have the free management of the house or 
housekeeping. . . . They go to market to buy what they 
like to eat. They are well dressed, fond of taking it easy, and 
commonly leave the care of household matters and drudgery 
to their servants. . . . All the rest of their time they employ 
in walking or riding, in playing at cards and otherwise, in 
visiting their friends and keeping company . . . and all 
this with the permission and knowledge of their husbands. 
Further on, the same writer says, “The girls who are not yet 
married are kept much more rigorously and strictly than in 
the Low Countries.” 2 In regard to the married woman’s 
going abroad, Thomas Heywood upholds this foreigner s 
account. He condemns the French proverb for the conduct 
of women, u La Femme in La Maison, et La Jambe rompue, 
that is, let the woman be in the house and her legge broke,” 
and approves rather the practice of “allowing both their 
features and fames a liberall freedome to undergoe any 

1 Keichel (1585), trans. in Rye’s England as seen by Foreigners , 
p. 89. 

2 van Miteren, in Rye, ibid., p. 77 ff. 


176 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


publicke censure.” 1 Thus the cloistered life of woman of 
feudal days had disappeared along with most of the false 
sentiment of chivalry. These descriptions manifestly deal 
only with women of the better classes, but a similar or per¬ 
haps greater liberty of the sex is shown to have existed 
among the working classes by the fact that the trade guilds 
were, for the most part, open to women as well as men. 

“ Poets in the Middle Ages had sung of woman as an angel, 
ecclesiastical asceticism had treated her as little better than 
a demon, but the men of the sixteenth century were of a 
different mould. They had something of the modern spirit, 
and looked upon woman as a being to share the common bur¬ 
dens and pleasures of life, not to be worshiped or shunned. ” 2 
Sir Walter Raleigh gives an excellent expression of this 
attitude. In his Instructions to his Son, he writes in regard 
to the choice of a wife: 

“Have therefore ever more care, that thou be beloved of thy 
Wife, rather than thy self besotted on her; and thou shalt judge of 
her love by these two observations: first If thou perceive she have 
a care of thy estate, and exercise her self therein; the other, If 
she study to please thee, and be sweet unto the in conversation, 
without thy instruction, for Love needs no teaching. . . . Let 
her have equal part of thy Estate whilest thou livest, if thou find 
her sparing and honest.” 3 

Nevertheless the Elizabethan ideal of woman, whether justly 
so or not, was considerably lower than that of today, espe¬ 
cially than that of America. The model wife was a woman of 
moderate attainments only, and St. Paul’s dictum, “I suffer 
not the woman ... to usurp the authority over the man, ” 
expressed in one way or another, was a knell that was con¬ 
stantly rung in her ears. Perhaps Eve, in the latter part 

1 Heywood, Most Worthy Women, f. **b. 

2 Hill, Women in English Life, I, 117. 

3 Raleigh, Remains of Sir Walter Raleigh, p. 85. 


CONTEMPORARY ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMAN 177 

of Paradise Lost, where she appears as a real helpmate 
to her husband, presents the best contemporary picture of 
what it was thought, from the latter part of the sixteenth to 
the latter part of the seventeenth century, a wife should be. 1 
A similar portrayal is found in Overbury’s A Wife, which 
judging from its immense popularity, 2 seems to have had 
wide approval. 

“ Give me next Good, an understanding Wife 
By nature wise, not learned by much Art. 

Some knowledge on her side will all my Life 
More scope of Conversation impart. 

A passive understanding to conceive, 

A judgment to discern, I wish to finde. 

Beyond that, all as hazardous I leave: 

Learning and pregnant wit in Woman-kinde, 

What it finds malleable maketh frail, 

And doth not add more ballast, but more sail.” 3 

Thomas Heywood upholds this point of view in his instruc- 
tions to prospective husbands: 

“Yet were it best a modest medium keepe, * 

Chuse neither compleate Shrow, nor perfect Sheepe, 

I would have my wife neither tongue-tide quite 
Nor yet all tonnge; so much as could accite 
To affability and amorous prate 
So much I’d haue her vse, and more I hate. 

1 A good deal of nonsense has been written about Milton’s supposed 
“low ideal of woman.” It must be clear by this time that, although 
his ideal was lower than that of today, it was considerably higher than 
the average of his time. 

2 At least five editions of the poem occurred the year of its publi¬ 
cation (1614) and ten more by 1632. 

J Overbury, op. dt., 11. 175 ff. 


178 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


She of the two extreames, if you demand 
With which I would be troubled, vnderstand, 

I’d take the gentle beast, the harmelesse Sheepe, 

Whose calmenes would not fright me from my sleepe.” 1 

The author of A Discourse of the Married and Single Life 
says on the point raised by Heywood, that some men “haue 
made it a great question, whether it were better for a man to 
marrie a shrew, or a sheepe, but hardly can it be resolued. ” 2 
Again, Niccholes, writing on the choice of a wife, says that 
she should be “of sober and mild aspect, courteous behauiour, 
decent carriage, of a fixed eye, constant looke and vnaffected 
gate.” 3 Such expressions may be found in almost all the 
domestic books. L. Wright puts it, “A woman that is silent 
of tongue: shamfast of countinance: vertuous qualities 
correspondent: is like a goodly pleasant flower . . . which 
shall be giuen for a good portion to such a one as feareth 
God. ” 4 John Donne says in one of his sermons that it would 
be a sin for one to love a wife as he does his mistress; and 
although he is evidently referring to the quality rather than 
the quantity of love, the statement is nevertheless evidence 
of the prevailing idea that a mistress was to be passionately 
idealized, whereas a wife was to be regarded as a natural and 
somewhat uninteresting, though none the less valuable, 
adjunct to every-day life. The poetry of the period raises 
the former to the gods; the prose instructs the latter how 
to walk upon earth. 

1 Heywood, History conceminge Women, p. 236. 

2 Op. cit., f. A6. 

3 Niccholes, Marriage and Wiving, p. 9. 

4 Wright, Display of dutie, p. 22. 


CHAPTER VI 

WIDER RANGES OF DOMESTIC LITERATURE 
I. More General Conduct Books 

It is possible in a brief discussion only to indicate the 
many types of writing with which the books we have been 
studying heretofore are more or less intimately connected, 
and to suggest tentatively certain relations that seem to 
exist among them. As has been said already, the domestic 
book is not as a rule literary in character; nevertheless, 
certain tendencies toward conscious artistry often exist, 
and, as has been shown, examples of real literary merit are 
not altogether lacking. If we go further afield, to the con¬ 
duct books of kindred nature, we find many that are dis¬ 
tinctly literary; and in the recognized literature of the period, 
we may discover the influence of the increasing interest in 
domestic affairs and possibly that of the family book itself. 

The culmination of interest in domestic life took place in 
the last quarter of the sixteenth century, at which time we 
may group around the household book such allied types as 
the book of manners, the book of moral reflection and 
allegory, the book of direction and advice to young people, 
and books following the models set by Machiavelh’s II 
Principe, Castiglione’s II Corteqiano, and Nenna’s II Nenmo. 
Besides these, there were others on more specific subjects 
connected with domesticity and the conduct of life, such as 
cookery, household medicine, the education of children, the 
government of estates, gentlemen’s callings (especially the 
practice of arms), recreations, the religious life of the family, 

179 


180 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


the various phases and occupations of society, the pleasures 
of city and country life, and so forth. The last part of Eliza¬ 
beth’s reign has been described as a period when the English 
nation paused to take stock of itself. The literature of the 
time certainly exhibits a national awakening, and the more 
utilitarian writing shows equally the development of an 
individual self-consciousness. This attitude had been steadily 
growing in England with the increase of the practice of in¬ 
quiry and thought in place of the acceptance of dogma: the 
Reformation was an important stimulus in this direction; 
the Renaissance brought the movement to flower. We can¬ 
not here go into the origin and development of even the more 
important types of books before us, but must content our¬ 
selves with a glance at the results therefrom. 

Of the books which I have mentioned as culminating to 
some extent about the beginning of the seventeenth century, 
those on particular topics are too specialized, and those of 
the moral meditation and moral allegory types are too general 
and form too large a field, for our consideration. Of the 
others, the book of manners, the book of the courtier, and 
the book of princely conduct, are pretty well known. But 
there is another type of some importance, which, although 
akin to the three types just mentioned, seems to have 
escaped observation. This we may call, for convenience’ 
sake, the book of honor or nobility. A typical volume of 
this class, while reflecting the ideas of the Cortegiano , is 
really nearer in nature to the book of moral philosophy, 
since it is concerned with the virtues which go to make up a 
gentleman, such as justice, temperance, friendship, education, 
etc., rather than with his qualifications as an ornament of the 
court. The usual conception of the gentleman of this time 
has been expressed thus: “The knight had been transformed 
into the courtier; and the ‘virtuous and gentle discipline,’ 
deemed requisite for him in his new sphere, was, for the most 


WIDER RANGES OF DOMESTIC LITERATURE 181 

part, to be found in such regulations for external behaviour 
as are laid down in Castiglione’s II Cortegiano.” 1 Such a 
statement obviously presents but half the case, for beside 
the transformation of the knight into the courtier, we find 
in the book of honor a presentation of him as the English 
gentleman, clad with “the armour of a Christian man speci¬ 
fied by St. Paul, vi Ephes.,” as Spenser expressed it. 2 An 
example of such a book, written before the Cortegiano, is 
Barclay’s Mirrour of Good Manners, translated from the 
Latin of Dominicus Mancinus in 1523, which consists 
chiefly of discussions in verse of prudence, virtue, magna¬ 
nimity, and temperance. The books nearest to this type in 
Italian literature are Nenna’s II Nennio, Muzio’s II Gentil - 
uomo, and Giraldi’s Dialoghi della Vita Civile; but the first 
two of these are concerned only with the question of what 
should constitute a nobleman, — whether birth, riches, or 
virtues of the mind — and the third is simply a reworking 
of the ethical philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. The 
Spanish writer Jeronomo Osorio, in his Discourse of Civill 
and Christian Nohilitie, as translated by William Blandy in 
1576, comes nearer the type we are following, and treats 
briefly justice, courage, liberality, magnanimity, eloquence, 
and knowledge of men as virtues requisite for a nobleman, 
and justice, liberality, friendship, fortitude, and magnanimity 
as those of a Christian gentleman. The Academie Frangoise 
by la Primaudaye, which was put into English in 1586 by 
T. B., combines the nobility type with some of the others 
noted, and includes discussions of such topics as virtue, vice, 
duty, prudence, friendship, education, temperance, fortitude, 

1 Camb. Hist. Eng. Lit., Ill, 266. 

2 Spenser, Letter to Raleigh, prefatory to Faerie Queene. Graund 
Amour in Hawes’ Passetyme of Pleasure, Youth in his Example of Virtue, 
and Spenser’s own Red Cross Knight are all described as wearing the 
same Christian armor, and St. Paul’s Epistle is expressly referred to 
in each case. 


182 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


justice, etc. The continued popularity of this book in Eng¬ 
land is shown by the fact that the translation ran into six 
editions by 1618. 

In England itself, we find a clear sequence of nobility 
books from Middle English times down. The best early 
example is, of course, Hoccleve’s Gouvernail of Princes , which 
is almost entirely given up to the discussion of moral virtues, 
but the roots of the type go further back to such works as 
Piers the Plowman or even to the still earlier exemplum 
and virtue stories. We cannot say that this series was 
unaffected by foreign literature and foreign ideas, any more 
than we can say the like of any other literary development, 
but we may claim perhaps that the main stream was native. 

In the last part of the sixteenth century, however, the 
Italian influence was so strong that the nobility book became 
combined with others, in a type which, gradually clearing 
itself of irrelevant matter, culminated in the book of “the 
complete gentleman.” 1 Previous to this time, Elyot had 
entered the field with his Gouvernour , in 1531, in which some 
of the Italian ideas are combined with treatments of many of 
the moral virtues. A better example, however, of the com¬ 
bination of types is Humphrey’s The Nobles, written first in 
Latin in 1560 and translated into English in 1563. Here, in 
addition to a great deal of general moral discourse, we have 
the usual Italian classification of nobility, on the grounds of 

1 The Italian books, especially those of the Principe and Cortegiano 
types, and the ideas contained therein, are fully discussed in Einstein, 
The Italian Renaissance in England. The more prominent English 
imitations, Elyot’s Gouvernour , Humphrey’s The Nobles, the anonymous 
Institutions of a Gentleman, and some others, are also noted. But the 
later books combining various types are entirely overlooked, as are also 
The Covrt of ciuill Courtesie by S. Robson in 1591, Ars Avlica, trans¬ 
lated from the Italian of Lorenzo Ducci by Ed. Blount in 1607, and 
The Honest Man, translated from the French of N. Faret by Ed. Grim- 
stone in 1632, which are all typical books of the Cortegiano class. 


WIDER RANGES OF DOMESTIC LITERATURE 183 

birth, wealth, and attainment, as in the Nennio; we have also 
a similarity to the Cortegiano , in the instructions given to the 
courtier; and finally, in the field of gentlemanliness, we 
have brief treatises of liberality, justice, temperance, conti¬ 
nence, magnificence, apparel, the house, sports, the educa¬ 
tion of children, etc., perhaps modeled on the Discourse 
of Osorio, who is mentioned by name. A similar treatise 
is John Larke’s Flower of Vertue, translated from the Italian 
of Fiore in 1565. A work which has little or nothing of the 
courtier but which represents a combination of the morality 
and nobility books, is Thomas Rogers’ Anatomie of the minde, 
in 1576, one of the many “anatomies” of the time, some of 
which are distinct forerunners of Burton’s famous Anatomy of 
Melancholy. Rogers’ book is divided into two parts, the first 
on “Perturbations in Generali,” which he defines according 
to Zeno’s opinion as “conditions of the mind contrary to 
reason,” for example, pleasure, ambition, lust, anger, love, 
fear, sorrow; and the second, “Of Morall Vertues,” which is a 
typical nobility book, discussing first wherein felicity or 
nobility exists, — whether in mind, body, or estate — and 
secondly, the qualities or virtues of the mind, including those 
of Aristotle in addition to many others. The last named divi¬ 
sion of the work runs to some 250 pages and is the fullest 
treatment thereof that I have found. The Blazon of Gentrie 
by John Feme, in 1586, illustrates a type of book which only 
just touches upon that we are following. It is, in the main, 
a treatment of the bearing of arms, the laws of combat, and 
kindred topics, together with a second part showing the an¬ 
cestries of certain families and various interests connected 
with them. The first contains a discussion of nobility from 
a civil point of view, the professions of gentlemen, and some 
allied subjects. The whole treatment is presented in a dia¬ 
logue between a herald, a knight, a divine, a lawyer, an 
antiquary, and a plowman, but this device to disguise exposi- 


184 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


tory writing was so common in English literature from earliest 
times down that we are unable to argue anything from the 
fact that it is here used. 

So far, we have noted no discussion of marriage in these 
books of combined interests. The earliest example I have 
found which does include this subject is The French Academie 
of la Primaudaye. This work contains seven successive 
chapters on marriage and domestic affairs, which by them¬ 
selves would make a typical family book. But in 1589, there 
appeared a book of native origin combining several of the 
types of the time and containing a treatment of marriage. 
This is L. Wright’s A Display of dutie, “diet with sage sayings, 
pythie sentences, and proper similies. ” It consists of short, 
somewhat unrelated chapters, among which are discussions 
of idleness, fortitude, chastity, the duties of a subject to a 
prince, friendship, marriage, art, etc. The Display , however, 
is too slight to be of importance, except as the first native 
example of the type. In 1597, there appeared a book of 
similar nature by John Bodenham, the compiler of England 1 s 
Helicon , entitled Politeuphuia; Wits Commonwealth , which 
was popular enough, for undiscoverable reasons, to run into 
ten editions by 1605 and ten more before the new century 
was out. 1 This rather small volume combines the interests 
of the morality, nobility, and domestic books, and, as the 
title indicates, treats of almost everything under the sun, 
the first chapter being on God and the last on hell. Each 
topic is presented very briefly by means of a general state¬ 
ment in italics, as a proposition for demonstration, followed 

1 The similar book Wits theatre of the little World, is included here. 
The compiling of these two books seems to have been done by Ling 
and Allott respectively, over whom Bodenham held some kind of 
editorship. (See D. N. B .) Both books are practically the same in 
content. 


WIDER RANGES OF DOMESTIC LITERATURE 


185 


by quotations from the classics and references to the usual 
well-worn historical and mythical events. The book is 
absolutely without arrangement, and on the whole amounts 
to little more than a multitude of quotations and anecdotes 
gathered under different headings. A far superior, although 
less popular, work was William Vaughan’s The Golden Grove, 
published in 1599, with a second edition in 1608. The 
author’s prefatory description of this book gives a good 
summary of the three treatises which compose it: “If any 
man delight to haue himselfe shine with a glorious shew of 
vertue, I haue giuen him the toppes or moral behauior; if to 
haue his house and family wel beautified, I haue yeelded him 
diuers braunches for that purpose; if to haue his country 
flourish, I haue sent him deep-grounded stemme of policy.” 
To speak more plainly, the three parts consist of a typical 
treatise of nobility, which discusses justice, truth, mag¬ 
nanimity, temperance, magnificence, courtesy, friendship, 
patience, etc., a typical domestic book, and a book of poli¬ 
tics, — perhaps a distant follower of Machiavelli’s — treat¬ 
ing of such things as the duties of subjects, the functions of 
governmental bodies, the value of education, and other 
interests of a commonwealth. Each treatise is divided up 
into short chapters, 186 in all, so that in appearance the book 
is much like its predecessors, but in reality the topics are 
better chosen and better arranged. 

In the seventeenth century, we find the above types 
continuing. Segar’s Honor Military and Ciuill, in 1602, and 
Peacham’s Compleat Gentleman, in 1622, only border on 
our field, the former being concerned chiefly with arms, com¬ 
bats, tournaments, orders of chivalry, etc., and the latter, 
after a discussion of the education of youth, with the various 
diversions and pleasures of a man’s life. Similarly, Francis 
Markham’s Booke of Honour, in 1625, is also off the track, as 
it deals with the different orders of nobility and the honor to 


186 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


which they are entitled rather than with the character of a 
noble or a gentleman. Barckley’s A Discovrse of the Felicitie of 
Man, newly corrected and augmented in 1603, is a book more 
of moral philosophy than of conduct. It is an extensive 
treatise of some 600 pages, in which it is demonstrated that 
the true felicity of mankind lies not in pleasure, riches, 
glory, or virtue, but in the “grace of God,” and that man’s 
“summurn bonum” is “to worship and glorify God in this 
life that wee may be ioyned with him in the life to come.” 
The book is not so stuffily religious as this outline would 
indicate, and a great deal of attention is given to classical 
philosophy. Bryskett’s A Discovrse of Civill Life , in 1606, 
which is a pretty slavish translation of Giraldi’s Dialoghi 
della Vita Civile, is not greatly different in kind from Barck¬ 
ley’s book, but the argument depends more on the Greek 
and Latin philosophers than on the teachings of the Scrip¬ 
tures. The subjects discussed also deal much more with 
actual life and less with abstractions, so that whereas the 
Felicitie of Man seems properly to be classed as a book of 
morality, the Civill Life is distinctly one of gentlemanly 
conduct. Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy is too well known 
to require more than a word, despite its importance in 
literary history. The title suggests a very narrow field of 
interest, but the author finds place within the book for 
discussions of many phases of the life of man. 

But by far the best example of the culmination of the type 
is Richard Brathwait’s The English Gentleman, published in 
1630, with later editions in 1633, 1641, and 1652. This is a 
large book of 456 pages, divided into eight treatises entitled 
youth, disposition, education, vocation (including domestic 
life), recreation, acquaintances, moderation, and perfection. 
A glance at the index, in which over 200 separate items 
are mentioned, gives some idea of the completeness of the 
work. Each topic is thoroughly treated; the argument is 


WIDER RANGES OF DOMESTIC LITERATURE 187 

based first on common sense and secondly on classical and 
scriptural authority; and the style of writing, though show¬ 
ing little conscious attempt at artistry, is clear, strong, and 
often spirited. The book concludes with a brief character¬ 
ization of the English gentleman, summarizing in a few 
words each of the eight main divisions, which is worthy to 
be put beside the better known one of Sir Philip Sidney. 
The companion piece to the English Gentleman , entitled 
The English Gentlewoman, published in 1631, does for woman 
what Gentleman work does for man. 1 In 1633, the two were 
published in the same volume, and in this form make one of 
the most interesting books, from an extra-literary stand¬ 
point, of the century, and one which certainly deserves more 
attention than it has received. 

Three other books may be dismissed with a word each. 
Rous’ The Art of Happiness, 1619, republished in 1631, is a 
combination of the conduct and moral philosophy types. 
Stafford’s Guide to Honour, 1634, is a small volume of practical 
advice in regard to man’s various activities. R. C.’s The 
Happy Mind, 1640, is similar to the Art of Happiness, but 
contains in addition a treatment of the four “complexions,” 
which may have been suggested by the Anatomy of Melan¬ 
choly . 

All of these books, dealing with life and human nature in 
their different aspects, like the typical domestic book, are 
utilitarian rather than literary; but the development of 
which they are a part and the ideas they express, without 
doubt had a distinct influence upon the purely literary work 
of the time. That which comes nearest them in kind is the 
moral allegory, and their influence here is greater than has 
heretofore been demonstrated. Take the Faerie Queene for 
example, of which it is usually said that Spenser took the 
twelve virtues, on which the poem was to be built from the 

1 See above, pp. 162-163. 


188 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


neo-Platonists of Italy. 1 It is indisputable that Spenser’s 
debt to the thought and literature of Italy was large. Beside 
the better known writings of that country, he may have 
known Piccolomini’s Institutione Morale; he seems to have 
been a friend of Bryskett, the translator of Giraldi’s Vita 
Civile , 2 and perhaps knew this work in the original; and he 
certainly was familiar with Nenna’s II Nennio, since he 
wrote a commendatory sonnet (though a very bad one) to 
Jones’ translation of it. Considering his interest in this 
kind of writing, which his valuable letter to Raleigh fully 
testifies, it is only natural to suppose that he read the Eng¬ 
lish as well as the Italian works. It is certainly pushing the 
Italian influence too far to make it entirely responsible for the 
writing of the Faerie Queene, since discussion of the ideas 
embodied in the poem was widespread in England, both in 
and out of print. An interesting feature which connects 
Spenser’s moral philosophy with English rather than Italian 
thought and with one of the new ideas which I have tried 
to emphasize in this study, is his treatment of the virtue of 
chastity. This he casts to be played by a woman, which is in 
exact keeping with the teaching of the domestic books, in 
which the word is used in connection with woman only and 
in which the virtue is regarded as especially a feminine one. 

1 Jusserand, Mod. Phil., Ill, 373 ff., has shown that Spenser spoke 
carelessly* a a saying that he took his twelve virtues from Aristotle, and 
that they came rather from Renaissance interpretation of the classics. 
He pitches upon Piccolomini and Giraldi as the chief sources, but his 
evidence here is far from convincing, especially as the conversation 
reported by Bryskett in regard to Giraldi’s book has been shown to 
be fictitious. 

1 Erskine, P.M.L.A. , XXX, 837 ff., has overthrown the belief that 
the famous conversation between Spenser and Bryskett actually took 
place; however, he believes that the two were friends, as seems more 
than likely, and that Spenser took his conception of friendship as a 
virtue from Giraldi’s original Italian. 


WIDER RANGES OF DOMESTIC LITERATURE 


189 


Furthermore, Spenser’s conception of chastity as a character¬ 
istic of the wife and mother, rather than of the virgin only, 
is in keeping with the new thought of the German and English 
Reformation and contrary to that of Catholicism, which held 
sway in Italy. 1 It is evident that the doctrines of the Faerie 
Queene came, for the most part, from the classics; but these 
doctrines were influenced and added to not only by Christian 
philosophy but by the new religious and moral ideas of the 
sixteenth century. 2 These two elements in Spenser’s allegor¬ 
ical treatment of the English gentleman have been neglected 
by students of his work, probably because they have been 
ignorant of the English books discussed above and of the 
extent of English thought on the subject. 

Of the less known moral allegories, space allows for men¬ 
tion of only three, which from their obvious connection with 
the books we have been studying, seem to stand out as par¬ 
ticularly important. 

An interesting book of purely moral conduct type was 
published in 1584 by W. Averell. 3 It contains three treatises, 
entitled A dyall for dainty darlings, rockt in the cradle of 
securitie, A glasse for all disobedient sounes to look in, and A 
myrrour for vertuous maydes. The main feature of each 
treatise is an exemplum tale of some length, inculcating the 
desired lesson. The style is typically Euphuistic, although 
lacking Lyly’s lightness of touch. The opening of the first 
tale is as follows: 

1 Bacon, in his essay Married and Single Life, also speaks of chastity 
as a characteristic of the married woman. Contrast Spenser’s and 
Bacon’s conception of chastity with the earlier English usage of the 
term by Chaucer in the Prologue to the Wife of Bath’s Tale, where it 
is consistently used as a synomym of virginity and an antonym to the 
marriage state. See also Donne’s remark on the subject, p. 122, 
n. 1, above. 

2 Spenser himself refers to St. Paul’s teachings. See above, p. 181. 

* The book goes under the combined titles of the three treatises. 


190 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


“There was within the famous Cittie of Constantinople, a Cap- 
taine ouer a certayne bande of Venetians, who, if he could as well, 
by wisdome haue gouerned his wiues infirmitie, as he could by 
pollicie conduct and rule his armie, his memorie had beene obscured 
with blotte of obliuion, and his wiues example drowned in the suddes 
of silence.” 1 

A still more interesting volume is Willobie his A visa, in 
1594, which ran into four more editions by 1610. According 
to the “Epistle to the Reader,” it was put out by Hadrian 
Dobell, who says that he found it among Willoby’s papers. 2 
It is this book which contains, in one of the commendatory 
verses, the first definite printed reference to Shakespeare, and 
also, in the poem itself, a character called W. S., whom some 
fond critics have taken for the bard of Avon himself, Avisa 
being the “dark lady.” 3 The epistle has other references to 
contemporary literature in the sentence, “Although hee flye 
not alofte with the wings of Astrophell, nor dare to compare 
with the Arcadian shepherd, or any way match with the 
daintie Fayry Queene ...” The poem itself, which runs 
to 74 cantos and 128 pages, represents the “true picture of a 
modest maid and of a chast and constant wife” under the 
attempts of various suitors to make love to her. But she 
remains true to her name, the letters of which stand for 
“Amans vxor inuolata semper amanda .” 

“So thus she stands vnconquered yet, 

As Lambe amidst the Lions pause, 

Whom gifts, nor wils, nor force of wit, 

1 Averell, op. cit., f. Bi6. 

2 The whole account of this publication is probably fictitious. 

* See Grosart, Introd. to his reprint of the Avisa; also Fleay, Life 
Shakes., p. 121 ff., and Biog. Chron., II, 221 ff. This theory seems to 
me, like that built up on Milton’s divorce tracts, a case of first putting 
the plum in the pie. 


WIDER RANGES OF DOMESTIC LITERATURE 


191 


Could vanquish once with all their shewes, 

To speake the truth, and say no more, 

I neuer knew her like before.” 1 

Spenser’s imitators are well known and may be omitted 
here. But I must mention one small book of this class which 
seems to have been overlooked heretofore. This is The 
Labyrinth of Mans Life by John Norden in 1614. It is an 
allegory of the Spenserian type, but differs from the latter in 
that it is made up chiefly of moralizing on the part of the 
author and the characters and contains little action. One 
stanza of the author’s prefatory verses is worth quoting for 
its references to contemporary writers. 

“Chawcer, Gowre, the bishop of dunkell, 

In ages farre remote were eloquent: 

Now Sidney, Spencer, others moe excell, 

And are in latter times more excellent 
To antique Lauriats paralell.” 2 

The book itself is in heroic couplets, an early example of 
their use. The verses given as the argument of the poem 
summarize both its story and its moral teaching. 

“The Man that in the Cell of Silence sits, 

Imports content, in his distastfull fits, 

The Labyrinth, the worlds inconstancie, 

The passionate Desert doth signifie. 

True vertue doth the Lady represent, 

The hag foule Enuy, alwaies malecontent: 

Who what the Ladie, frames and rectifies, 

She in despite, inchants, and vilifies. 

Wherein the Authors purpose is to show, 

Enuies assault, And Vertues counterblow: 

How Enuie showes her most obsequious, 

When she would circumuent the Vertuous.” 3 

1 Willoby, op. dt., f. 62 b. 

2 Norden, op. cit., f. A3 b. 

3 Ibid., f. Bi b. 


192 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


II. Domestic Drama 1 

As has already been noted, the drama was early used for 
satire against women and the marriage state in general. In 
the Towneley Mysteries , for instance, the merry devil Tuti- 
villus is given the special office of denouncing women who 
talk in church; in the same cycle, the quarreling of Noah 
and his wife, due to the latter’s shrewishness, forms an 
episode of some importance; and Joseph, previous to the 
flight of the holy family into Egypt, soliloquizes on the 
troubles of married life and warns the young people of 
the audience against entering into it. Among the moralities, 
the problem of the proper upbringing of children was occa¬ 
sionally touched on, as in Nice Wanton; and in a few cases, 
the state of matrimony itself was dealt with in plays pre¬ 
senting the evils of forced and ill-assorted unions and of 
marriages made by children against the will of their parents, 
as in Juventus Pater Uxor and The Disobedient Child. But 
the excursions of the morality into the field of home life for 
the purpose of instruction as to family relations, did not 
give rise to any series of moral domestic plays in later drama; 
for although there is evidence that some feeling existed even 
into James’ reign that the stage should be used as a didactic 
medium and “so obtain the very end of poesy, ” — as Sidney 
put it — it is not possible to find more than a handful of 
plays in all fields combined that have any well-defined moral 
issue as their basis. 

Despite this lack of moral intent, there can be no doubt 
that some of the plays put on were designed to present a 

1 By domestic drama I mean that dealing with family life. The occa¬ 
sional use of the term to refer to native plays or influences or to plays 
of middle-class life, is here disregarded altogether. For fuller informa¬ 
tion on plays mentioned, see Schelling, Elizabethan Drama, 1558-1642. 
A list of Elizabethan plays, telling where each is published, may be 
found ibid., II, 538. 


WIDER RANGES OF DOMESTIC LITERATURE 


193 


domestic situation or problem for the consideration of the 
public; such plays as Arden of Faver sham and A Warning for 
Fair Women were even taken from actual life and dramatized 
as horrible examples of evil households. But among the many 
plays dealing with domestic relations of one kind or another, 
we are forced to admit that comparatively few were actually 
aimed to present or dicuss marriage itself or the allied inter¬ 
ests found in the domestic conduct books. As a rule, the im¬ 
portance of the home in the drama of the time is chiefly that 
of a convenient setting for a plot which, although involving 
husband, wife, and perhaps children, is motivated more by 
outside agents than by actions or passions within the family 
circle. Moreover, in those plays where it is evident that 
the author had some serious intention to instruct, as in How 
a Man May Choose a Good Wife from a Bad, the lesson often 
fails of actual demonstration. Nevertheless, a number of 
plays remain which do present domestic conditions, and if 
indeed they are not motivated to any great extent by family 
relations, they at least offer marital problems for thought 
and discussion. The commonest subject presented in this 
connection was the situation produced in a family by an 
extraordinary wife, a creature who seems to have existed 
in but two types, the “complete shrew” and the “perfect 
sheep.” In addition, we find the “horrible example” play 
of marriage at its worst, plays on the contention of parents 
and children in regard to marriage, and several triangle plays, 
like A Woman Killed with Kindness, wherein the author seems 
to have had a real feeling for the subtle possibilities of the 
domestic drama to portray the more intimate thoughts, 
feelings, and situations of human life. In as much as all 
these plays have a distinct connection, of subject matter at 
least, with general domestic literature and the ideas therein 
expressed, it will be worth while to glance briefly at some of 
the more noteworthy. 


194 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


The first play in which the shrewish wife is more than 
episodic is the well-known comedy Johan Johan usually 
attributed to John Heywood, c. 1532. Here she is not only 
the central figure but the motive force as well, and the fun is 
chiefly at the expense of her too patient husband. Up to 
this time, the shrew is primarily a comic figure in the drama, 
with perhaps just a touch of the didactic; but about the 
middle of the century, we find, in Tom Tyler and his Wife , 
the same theme used in a semi-morality play. There is a 
certain amount of fun in this piece, but the final resolution 
is entirely serious, in which the wife is persuaded by Patience 
to try to live on more amicable terms with the world. The 
two plays Juventus Pater Uxor and The Disobedient Child 
make a still more serious use of the shrew in employing her 
as one of the chief elements in driving home a moral. Both 
plays are on the theme of the marriage of children against 
the wishes of their parents, in which the wife acts the part of 
nemesis, since the evils of both marriages are due largely to 
the fact that the brides turn out to be shrews. Thus what 
was originally a comic situation at the expense of the woman 
became a tragic and didactic one for the instruction of the 
man. The resultant plots might almost be said to be 
dramatizations of certain chapters of the domestic book, 
the husband’s career illustrating the value of the warnings 
against forbidden marriages, and the unattractive character 
of the wife representing the evil results of the woman’s flying 
in the face of St. Paul’s dictum and usurping the authority 
over the man. 

But with the decline of the morality play, the shrew, when 
forming the central figure of a drama, became rehabilitated 
as a comic character. In The Taming of a Shrew , the didactic 
element has given away altogether to the comic. The for¬ 
bidden marriage motive is also absent, and the play resolves 
itself into the mere carrying out of the action suggested in 


WIDER RANGES OF DOMESTIC LITERATURE 


195 


the title. The single serious element occurs in Kate’s final 
subjection to her husband and her speech explaining the 
reasons for her docility. Shakespeare’s adaptation of this 
play under the almost identical title needs no further com¬ 
ment. 1 An important contrast between these two plays and 
their predecessors lies in the fact that, whereas the earlier 
ones were written for the instruction of the man in regard to 
marriage, their successors have no well-defined interest in 
marriage itself but merely aim to present an entertaining 
combat of wits. Thus, although the wife is the butt of the 
comedy, it may not be pushing a point too far to find an 
influence of the growing attitude towards woman in the fact 
that she holds an equal part with the man and is regarded as 
a foe worthy of his steel. Later plays use the shrew motive 
almost entirely for the purpose of amusement. Fletcher, in 
his sequel to Shakespeare’s Shrew , The Woman’s Prize , 
reverses the course of the action and builds a good farce 
comedy thereupon. Here Maria, by blockading herself 
indoors against her husband, who is a sottish, carnally 
minded brute, successfully acts the shrew and brings him to 
a respectful attitude towards her and a realization of his own 
shortcomings. 2 At bottom, this play is based on a serious 
idea, but since the action is developed by comic situation 
and characters, the basic theme can receive but little con¬ 
sideration as a serious issue. The remaining shrews of current 

1 An interesting contrast occurs between the two versions of Kate’s 
last speech. In the earlier play, she harks back to Biblical authority 
for the subjection of woman; but Shakespeare’s heroine finds her sup¬ 
port in romantic traditions, whereby, since the husband suffers dangers 
and hardships abroad, the wife should be willing to follow and obey 
him at home. 

2 Mary in Monsieur Thomas plays similar tricks on her lover. In¬ 
deed, Fletcher’s heroines in comedy are usually a bit shrewish, and like 
Kate in The Shrew , may indicate an increasing respect for woman’s 
position and rights. 


196 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


drama — for instance the hostile wives in Porter's Two 
Angry Women of Abington, Eyre's wife in Dekker's Shoe¬ 
makers’ Holiday, Candido's wife in Dekker and Middleton’s 
The Honest Whore, Ft. 2, Lady Cressingham and Mrs. Chamlet 
in Middleton’s Anything for a Quiet Life — play but small 
parts, present no new interests, and may be passed over with 
the remark that since the shrew motive by this time was 
used for comedy only, we cannot think that the situations 
based on it were aimed to give any more serious attention to 
such incompatibility of temper in the family than that of 
laughing the offender out of court. 

The patient wife, though a frequent figure in the drama, 
presents but few cases of real interest. 1 She was used as 
early as 1538 by Radcliff in a non-extant play, but did not 
come into prominence as a type until the end of the century, 
when she appears as a victim in three situations: (1) as a 
deserted wife, remaining faithful to an absent husband 
(or lover); (2) as a “ patient Grissel,” loyal and loving in the 
face of her husband's cruelty; (3) in a triangle plot involving 
either her husband's pursuit of another woman or her own 
persecution by a would-be lover. In one way or another, 
most of the leading dramatists of the day used the patient 
wife motive, but it is difficult to say that it was employed in 
more than a few of these to present a definite moral idea. 
In Othello, for instance, Desdemona is entirely a lay figure, 
neither consciously furthering the action of the play nor 
awakening any particular interest on the part of the audience 
except as a pitiable victim of circumstance. The same may 
be said of most of the other women abused or deserted by 
husbands or lovers, such as Dorothea in Greene’s James IV, 
Hero in Shakespeare’s Much Ado about Nothing, Hermione in 
The Winter’s Tale, Catherine in Henry VIII, Mrs. Arthur in 
How a Man May Choose, Bellafronte and Infaeliche in The 
Honest Whore, Luce in The London Prodigal, Isabella in 

1 This motive originated in the French moralities of the fourteenth 
century. 


WIDER RANGES OF DOMESTIC LITERATURE 197 

Webster’s White Devil, and others. In some cases, the wife, 
though passive towards her husband’s or lover’s character, is 
active in rescuing him from trouble or in bringing his desertion 
to an end, as in Patient Grissel, by Dekker, Chettle, and 
Houghton, in Shakespeare’s All’s Well that Ends Well, usxid in 
Heywood’s Fair Maid of the West, Pt. 2. In the first of these, 
she solves the situation by the mere stubbornness of her 
patience; in All’s Well, she wins her husband back by 
deliberate plotting; and in The Fair Maid, she takes ship 
and goes in search of him. In a very few patient wife plots, 
notably Patient Grissel, the husband is confessedly “testing” 
his spouse — as God tested Job — and the play ends when 
he thinks she has had enough; in others, as Henry VIII and 
The White Devil, the wife drops out altogether, her case 
being hopeless; in two or three, Othello and The Wonder of 
Women for instance, the situation is allowed to run to its 
most logical conclusion and end in tragedy; and in others, 
most numerous of all, the author concludes a tiresome succes¬ 
sion of sordid scenes by bringing husband and wife to a 
reconciliation, and having placed them in mutual embrace, 
leaves them to live happily together ever afterwards as a 
reward for never having been able to live happily together 
before. 

It is evident to any one reading these plays that there 
must have existed in the minds of the dramatists some idea 
of setting forth patience as a wifely virtue, especially in such 
a play as Patient Grissel; but it is not safe to read more than 
this into the woman’s end of the average plot. In the cases 
of Isabella and Catherine, one can hardly assert this much, 
as their careers cannot be taken as advertizing the desirable 
virtue except in so far as it fulfils specifications in being its 
own, and only, reward. In most of the plays, although the 
wife’s patience surpasses the bounds of all reason, it really has 
little or no effect upon the plot except to provide a constant 


198 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


Constance whenever the villainous husband is ready to reward 
her with an eleventh-hour reformation. In other words, the 
patient wife in such plays exists less as a model for woman¬ 
kind than as a convenient means to the dramatist for keeping 
one thread of his plot well in hand. Exception may be taken 
to the last two statements in the cases of Patient Grissel, All's 
Well, and Wilkins’ Miseries of Enforced Marriage, since in 
these the wife puts herself in the wrong, to some degree at 
least, at the outset and may logically be expected to have 
to work out her own salvation. Grissel, like Margaret in 
Greene’s Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, consents to a 
marriage well above her own station of life and owes it to 
society to prove herself worthy of the alliance. Helena plays 
a far from gracious part at the opening of All’s Well by forc¬ 
ing herself, with the help of the King, upon Bertram; and 
having thus usurped the authority over the man, must suffer 
in consequence. From the first, she is the protagonist; and 
as the abuse she receives from her husband is desertion only, 
which she fully deserved, she appears more as a woman fight¬ 
ing for what she believes to be her rights than as a patient 
wife waiting for them to be showered into her lap. Katherine, 
in Miseries of Enforced Marriage, is similar in some degree to 
Helena, since she allows herself to be party to a marriage 
forced upon Scarborow after he has been made to break his 
former contract with Clare; but like her sisters in How a 
Man May Choose, The London Prodigal, and other plays, her 
subsequent career amounts merely to watchful waiting for 
her husband to return to her arms after going to the devil in 
his own way. It seems clear in these three plays, as well as 
in a few others on the same motive which are noted below, 
that the dramatist was actually attacking the problem of the 
abused wife; but except in the case of Grissel, whose abuse 
was more apparent than real, he reached no conclusion. 

Among the plays which we may classify as horrible exam- 


WIDER RANGES OF DOMESTIC LITERATURE 199 

pies of unfortunate marriages, we may cite two illustrating 
the evil of adultery and resultant viciousness, two dealing 
with forced marriage, and two whose titles suggest them 
to have been written with didactic intent. The first pair, 
the anonymous Arden of Faver sham and A Warning for Fair 
Women, which are practically identical in plot, present a com¬ 
monplace sequence of events leading from a triangle situation 
of husband, wife, and paramour. The greater part of both is 
taken up with the persistent attempts of the wife and her 
gallant to murder the husband, and both end with the villains 
in the hands of the law. As presenting the evil results of 
illicit love, these plays have a certain amount of crude force; 
but since the husband in each case offends only by existing, 
it would seem that the dramatist had aimed merely to exhibit 
the ugliness of sin and not to discuss the relations of husband 
and wife. Nevertheless, as attempts to deal with an existing 
domestic problem, these two plays are worthy of attention. 
The forced marriage situation occurs in The London Prodigal 
and The Miseries of Enforced Marriage, both of which fail to 
demonstrate convincingly the advertised lesson, since the 
unhappiness of each couple is due less to the forced marriage 
than to the simple fact that the husband is a rascal. This is 
apparent especially in The London Prodigal, where the man 
is anxious for the alliance but the girl is forced into it by her 
father. It should be said, however, that the forcing of the 
bride is not particularly emphasized, and perhaps the dram¬ 
atist had no intention of making it a motivating element. 
But the title of the second play gives us distinctly to under¬ 
stand that the writer had in mind the presentation of a 
definite marriage problem, a forced marriage complicated by 
a broken contract. 1 This situation forecasts a very interesting 

1 It is worthy of note that The Miseries of Enforced Marriage, like 
Arden of Faversham, A Warning for Fair Women, and The Yorkshire 
Tragedy , deals with actual crimes recently committed. 


200 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


play involving husband, former sweetheart, and wife; but 
none of the possibilities of the triangle are realized. The 
husband, angered at the marriage forced upon him, soon 
deserts his wife; but instead of returning to his sweetheart, 
he pursues the primrose path with evil companions until he 
is reduced to supporting himself by swindling and thievery. 
Just as he is preparing to add the murder of his wife and chil¬ 
dren to his other pleasant activities, he learns that his 
guardian, the original trouble-maker, is dead and that he is 
heir to a fortune. This solves every difficulty, brings order 
out of chaos, and unites husband and wife in marital bliss. 
Although, as may be seen, the miseries of the marriage are 
not convincingly shown to have resulted from its having been 
forced, the avowed attempt to present the problem is none 
the less important. The titles of the anonymous A Warning 
for Fair Women and of How a Man May Choose a Good Wife 
from a Bad, sometimes ascribed to Thomas Heywood, also 
tell of attempts at instruction on the subject of matrimony. 
The first, already noted, in a way fulfils its promise; the 
second does not get beyond the picturing of a patient wife — 
patient ad infinitum and ad nauseam — and of a villainous 
whore, her husband’s mistress. Except in presenting models 
of a good wife and a bad woman, the secret of how the inex¬ 
perienced are to tell the one from the other is not revealed. 
This play too, then, is a worthy effort but hardly an achieve¬ 
ment of its apparent purpose. One criticism that must be 
passed on these unhappy-marriage plays, except the first two 
noted, is that at the end of each the author snatches the fat 
from the fire by reconciling all parties, and leaves the reader 
with the feeling that after all the marriage turns out success¬ 
fully; so that much of the moral force present in the two 
murder plays is lost to the others. The fact that where the 
wife is the offender the plays result in tragedy, but where 
the husband performs equal and worse crimes they result in 


WIDER RANGES OF DOMESTIC LITERATURE 201 

forgiveness and reconciliation, is no mere accident but in 
strict keeping with the domestic ideals of the day. 

Plays involving the contention of children against parents 
in regard to marriage are worthy of consideration for a 
moment here only because of the attention given to this 
subject in the domestic books. In the drama, we find an 
interesting development in the use of the situation from the 
typical morality showing the evils of marriages made against 
the will of parents to the romantic comedy where the parents 
are made the dupes of the young people. The moralities 
Juventus Pater Uxor and The Disobedient Child , discussed 
above, illustrate the first use, and further comment upon 
them is unnecessary. Shakespeare evidently wished to 
emphasize the child-parent contention in Romeo and Juliet, 
since he altered the original story to make Juliet under the 
legal age for marriage and in addition shifted the contract 
made for her by her parents from the middle to the beginning 
of the play. 1 The emphasizing of the theme of crabbed age 
and youth certainly adds vastly to the original plot, but it 
may be pushing a point too far to consider this its chief 
motivation. The two plays in which a marriage is forced 
upon the young people, The London Prodigal and Miseries 
of Enforced Marriage , have already been commented upon. 
Up to this time, we may say that the dramatist evidently had 
some idea of driving home a moral, either for parents or 
children, in his use of the child versus parent motive; but in 
later plays, the situation becomes a typical starting point for 
comedy, although more serious use of it may occasionally be 

1 In the Bandello version of the story, Juliet is almost eighteen; 
in Broke's version, she is sixteen; in the play, she is just under fourteen, 
as is carefully brought to the audience's attention in act 1, sc. 3, and 
suggested as Lady Capulet’s reason for wishing her contracted at once. 
The marriage with Paris is broached in the same scene, that is, before 
the meeting of Juliet with Romeo; thus in contracting herself to 
Romeo, Juliet consciously defies her parents' wishes. 


202 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


found. Shakespeare himself used the motive for comedy in 
the Lorenzo-Jessica incident of The Merchant of Venice. 
In Houghton’s Englishmen for my Money , three sisters outwit 
their father, who wishes to contract them to three foreigners, 
and marry their native lovers. In The Shoemakers’ Holiday , 
Lacy, by means of a disguise, succeeds in carrying off Rose, 
though both families were opposed to the match. In The 
Two Angry Women of Ahington , the mothers only oppose 
the union, but again it is successfully brought off. The 
cruel father in Drayton’s Merry Devil of Edmonton puts hfe 
daughter in a nunnery in order to foil the persistent lover, 
but he, in the disguise of a priest, effects her escape and their 
subsequent marriage. Middleton’s Roaring Girl presents a 
father who, having arranged a match for his son, tries to 
back out of the marriage settlement; but the son, by pre¬ 
tending to be in love with a supposed prostitute, succeeds in 
making his father carry out the original contract. In the 
subplot of The Woman’s Prize , Livia outwits her father, who 
wishes to marry her to old Morosa, and with the help of a 
friend, weds the man of her choice. All of these plays are but 
superficially domestic; that is, the paternal and filial ele¬ 
ments are very slight, and their place might be taken just as 
well by any other force standing in the way of the marriage. 
The most that can be said of this situation is that the parents 
furnish the dramatist with a convenient obstacle for the 
young people to overcome. The fact that the parents are 
made ridiculous in their attempt to carry out what was really 
their right, shows how far the drama had strayed from the 
use it originally made of the situation. 

The triangle of husband, wife, and friend, which today is 
so often made the starting point of a domestic drama, was 
seldom developed in this way during the period under con¬ 
sideration. Although many plays may be found dealing 
with adultery, incest, and other crimes against marital 


WIDER RANGES OF DOMESTIC LITERATURE 


203 


society, such situations are used more as a means to intro¬ 
duce or complicate a plot of intrigue and adventure than to 
present the subtle and intimate relations of family life. 
Most of the triangle plays which do discuss or touch upon 
domestic problems have already been noted in other con¬ 
nections, for example, the two murder plays, several of the 
patient wife plays, and others. Of all the dramatists of the 
day, Thomas Heywood alone gives evidence of a realization 
of the great possibilities of the domestic drama, although 
others, Shakespeare especially, at moments rise to heights of 
unfulfilled promise in this field. 1 

Heywood drew his first picture of a noble husband and 
wife in Edward IV. Here Jane Shore is chosen for the 
“great promotion” of being the King’s mistress. But amid 
the splendors of her new station, she remains true at heart to 
her husband; and he, realizing that she is powerless in the 
King’s hands, is steadfast in his love and faith to her, and 
after she is cast out of court, he takes care of her at the peril 
of his life. Since opposition to the royal prerogative was im¬ 
possible, Jane and Master Shore are able to contribute to the 
development of the play only a noble picture of husband 
and wife true to each other and to their marriage vows as far 
as they are able in the face of extreme persecution. The 
length to which this tableau is drawn out shows that the 
dramatist wished to emphasize the situation, although he 
was unable to use it as a motive force in the main plot. In A 
Woman Killed with Kindness , Heywood for the first time 
in English drama dealt tenderly with the erring wife. Here 

1 Heywood’s interest in domestic literature has already been noted 
in connection with his books on women. (See above, p. 162.) It may 
be mentioned that the story of Geraldine occurs both in the History of 
Woman, Bk. IV, and in A Woman Killed with Kindness. Unfortu¬ 
nately only one tenth of Heywood’s plays are extant, so that a complete 
or satisfactory study of his domestic ideas as shown in his dramatic 
work is impossible. 


204 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


Mrs. Frankford, more out of sheer weakness than out of 
love for her tempter, falls a victim to his pursuit. At the 
discovery of her shame, Frankford conscientiously faces the 
problem thus brought before him and attempts to fit punish¬ 
ment to crime. Although his solution of the difficulty — that 
of shutting his wife up in solitary confinement — may leave a 
good deal to be desired, the fact that he acts without malice 
and forgives her in the end shows an entirely new attitude 
towards the fallen woman, who as a rule got but scant 
sympathy in either the drama or the life of the time. Mrs. 
Frankford, after her fall, plays a part almost equal to her 
husband’s; for realizing her own guilt and his fineness of 
feeling towards her, she turns from her lover to her husband 
and at his forgiveness dies happy. In The English Traveller , 
Heywood again touched upon somewhat the same theme, this 
time basing it upon a January and May situation — a 
favorite problem of the day — and making the young wife 
intrigue with a false friend of her husband’s. Most of the 
play is concerned with the pure love of another family friend 
(a theme in itself worthy of note), and the intrigue is not 
revealed until the last scene of the play. Again the erring 
wife casts off her lover and dies repentant and finally for¬ 
given. Since all three of these plays are resolved by the very 
convenient death of the wife, it is evident that Heywood 
found no real solution of the domestic problem he attacked; 
but in his treatment of both husband and wife, he shows him¬ 
self far ahead of his time and comes near to the modern 
attitude of malice towards none but charity for all. 1 

With this point of view in mind, the student will readily 
find touches in not a few plays which approach Heywood’s 
attitude towards man and woman in their relations to each 
other. Othello’s struggle between the faith of love and the 

1 Cf. also Master Generous and his attempt to redeem his wife in 
The Late Lancashire Witches. 


WIDER RANGES OF DOMESTIC LITERATURE 


205 


evidence of circumstances is an obvious example, although 
this play is a study of the man only. One of the noblest 
couples in Elizabethan drama is Massinissa and Sophonisba 
in Marston’s The Wonder of Women , where the husband pre¬ 
serves his faith in his wife despite slander, and the wife 
willingly gives her life in order to save her own honor and 
fulfil her husband’s pledge. But it is unnecessary here to 
multiply examples. 

As to the influence of the domestic and other conduct 
books on the drama or the drama’s influence on the conduct 
books, we are forced to conclude that very little existed. 
On the whole, the most we can say is that in both we often 
find expression of the same attitudes and ideas, which in 
each case seem to have been the reflection of current thought 
rather than an influence from one field to the other. The 
drama, as well as the other forms of literature previously dis¬ 
cussed, illustrates the attitudes of the time towards woman; 
and conversely, contemporary opinions regarding woman 
help to explain her position in the drama. It is noteworthy 
that in very few plays is she the protagonist. Her position 
of subservience in the family was probably the largest 
element in preventing the domestic relations of husband and 
wife from being by themselves the motivating force of a 
realistic play, except one of very light nature such as The 
Shrew. Elsewhere family relations are of secondary impor¬ 
tance in the plot, which is motivated more by some influence 
from without than from within the home circle. Othello’s 
tragedy, for instance, is brought about much more by Iago 
than by Desdemona or himself. The same situation occurs 
in the child versus parent play, the motive force being not the 
opposition of youth to age but the attraction of the child to 
the outside agent, here the lover. It is, of course, difficult to 
construct a play on domestic relations alone and uninflu¬ 
enced strongly from without, but the modern and better way 


206 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


is to make the outside force contributary rather than funda¬ 
mental. 1 To this ideal none of the Elizabethan playwrights 
reached; Heywood came the nearest, surpassing even 
Shakespeare, and in Edward IV and A Woman Killed con¬ 
structed plays in which the outside influence ceases after 
bringing things to a climax, and the falling action, here more 
than usually important, is carried on by husband and wife 
alone. Despite the apparent lack of influence from the drama 
upon the conduct books, it is reasonable to believe that it 
had a distinct influence upon the thought of the day. Cer¬ 
tainly the presentation of so many plays dealing with love, 
marriage, carnal sin, and so forth, whether romantic, his¬ 
torical, or domestic, must have had an effect upon the 
popular conception of family relations; and in the imagina¬ 
tive literature of the theatre, the idealization of woman and 
the recognition of woman’s importance gained a public 
hearing which could not pass unnoticed. 

1 Cf., for instance, such a play as Ibsen’s Doll’s House or Brieux’s 
Blanchette. 


APPENDIX A 


ENGLISH WRITING ON THE DIVORCE OF 
HENRY VIII AND CATHERINE 

The divorce of Henry VIII from his first wife, which occupied a 
large part of his attention from 1527 to 1534, was the subject of 
controversial writing in England, France, Germany, Italy, and 
Spain, and was of extreme importance politically in every country 
of Europe, affecting even Turkey. Every man of any prominence 
in England was involved in the agitation, either as a pamphleteer 
or as a political supporter of one side or the other. There were 
two main points in the controversy: (1) whether or not a man 
might marry his brother’s widow; (2) whether the Pope had 
exceeded his authority in allowing Henry to marry Catherine, 
who had been the wife of his brother Arthur. 1 A third point, of 
less consequence, was the question as to whether the marriage 
of Arthur and Catherine had been consummated by bodily knowl¬ 
edge, and if so, or if not, what effect this had upon the case. 2 These 
three points were the entire subject matter of the debate. 

1 The King’s supporters held, of course, that in no case might a 
man marry his brother’s widow and that the Pope had had no proper 
authority to allow the marriage with Catherine in the beginning. 
The King’s hypocrisy in the matter may be seen from the fact that a 
marriage with the sister of a mistress was as much against ecclesiastical 
law as one with the widow of a brother, since both were within the for¬ 
bidden degrees of the Levitical law (see above, p. 10, nn. 1.3). Anne 
Boleyn’s sister Mary had been Henry’s mistress (see statement by Pole, 
p. 222 below); thus the law he was trying to establish in order to in¬ 
validate the existing union with his wife, equally forbade the intended 
one with his sweetheart. 

2 The law of Deuteronomy (XXV, 5) enjoining the marriage of a 
man with his brother’s widow in case she was childless, if proved to 
supersede that of Leviticus (XVIII, 16, and XX, 21), which men- 

207 


208 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


In the Letters and State Papers of Henry VIII, there are listed 
some sixty or seventy documents, preserved at the London Record 
Office and elsewhere, dealing with this controversy, which range 
from manuscripts of a few pages to printed books of considerable 
length. 1 Almost all of them are in Latin, and only a few ever 
appeared in printed form. In addition to these, there are several 
better known works on the subject. No account of this contro¬ 
versy as a whole has ever been given, but a few of the books in¬ 
volved have been mentioned, usually with mistakes as to date, in 
works on the Reformation. 

Difficulties as to date, authorship, etc., arise at the very outset 
of our investigation and grow more complicated the further we 
go in it. The first mention of any controversial writing, accord¬ 
ing to the present chronological arrangement of state documents, 
is in two letters to the King, one by Richard Pace and the other 
by Robert Wakefield. Neither of the original manuscripts bears 
a date, but both are included in the State Papers under the year 
1527. 2 The reason for thus placing them is that they occur in 
printed form at the end of a book by Wakefield, Kotser Codicis R. 
Wakefeldi, where they are dated 1527. It is clear from internal 
evidence that Wakefield’s letter was written a day or two after 
Pace’s; thus we may consider them together. The information 
supplied by them is: (1) from Pace, that he had prepared a trea¬ 
tise “not without the Councell of Maister Wakfeld” in behalf 
of the King; (2) from Wakefield, “I have and will . . . answer 
the bishop of Rochester’s 3 book.” These letters and their sup¬ 
posed date have been made the starting point of a good deal of 

tioned no exceptions to its forbidden degrees, would render Henry’s 
cause without Biblical support. To obviate this, in any case, his sup¬ 
porters interpreted the word childless to mean virginal. Thus the 
point as to whether there had been carnalis copula between Arthur 
and Catherine, was of some importance. 

1 Most of these are listed at the beginning of Vol. V, but others are 
mentioned both before and after this. 

2 State Papers, IV, 3233 and 3234. They are here summarized only. 
They are given in full form in Knight, Erasmus, App. VIII and IX. 

3 John Fisher was Bishop of Rochester. 


APPENDIX A 


209 


history and biography. I am now able to demonstrate that they 
were antedated (probably by Berthelet, the printer, who is often 
in error as to dates) and were in fact not written until 1529, as 
follows: (1) The Kotser Codicis, in which they are first given a 
date, could not possibly have been printed before December, 1530, 
as is shown below. 1 (2) In 1527, the divorce was still a secret matter 
and was not discussed outside of a very narrow circle. (3) Wake¬ 
field says in his letter that he shifted from the Queen’s side to the 
King’s because of the claim, which he believed true, that she had 
been carnally known by Arthur. This point was first officially 
advanced on June 28, 1529. (4) All evidence (except Wakefield’s 
letter) points to the fact that Fisher’s first writing on the subject 
was the “little book” presented at the Queen’s trial on June 28, 
1529 (Wakefield could not have undertaken to answer Fisher’s 
book before it was written). (5) Pace in his letter speaks of an 
“Alphabete in Hebrewe Tunge” and asks the King “to delyver 
the saide Alphabete to Maister Foxe your selfe.” This reference 
is, of course, to Edward Foxe, who in 1527 had never been heard 
of by the court. His admission as prebendary of Osbaldwicke on 
Nov. 8, 1527, was his first step out of obscurity. But in 1528, he 
gained prominence through being sent by Gardiner to Rome, and 
after his return, was in attendance upon the King at Waltham 
during August, 1529. The letters then, are definitely settled to 
have been written during that month, and the history and biog¬ 
raphy based on the earlier date must be revised. 

The writings mentioned by Pace and Wakefield being out of the 
way for the present, we find that the King himself was the first m 
the field of written controversy. Whether he entered upon his 
own initiative and wrote according to his own knowledge and 
skill, or whether, in the whole course, he acted upon the sugges¬ 
tion and with the assistance of his ecclesiastical advisers, we can¬ 
not say. In 1528, he writes to Anne Boleyn that he has a book 
in progress, to which he had devoted four hours’ work that very 
day. 2 Later, in 1532, Chapuys, in writing to Charles V of Foxe’s 


1 See below, p. 221. 

2 State Papers , IV, 4597. This letter is not dated, but it is recorded 
under the year 1528. 


210 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


journey to France, says that he carried “many books touching 
the divorce most of them written by the King.” 1 Other references 
occur in letters of the time to “the King’s book”; but it is 
impossible to tell whether these are to the work mentioned by the 
King and, if so, what it was, or whether the phrase means a 
book of the King’s authorship or merely one in his cause. At 
any rate, no extant book is now attributed to him, except the 
Glasse of the Truthe, whose slight claim to royal authorship is 
discussed below. 2 

John Fisher, then, is the first man to whom we can definitely 
assign a book on this subject which is now extant and correctly 
attributed to him. During the course of the divorce, he was the 
author of seven or eight books on the Queen’s side of the dispute, 
most of which were never printed. Fisher’s biographers have 
overlooked these almost entirely. 3 On June 28, 1529, Fisher was 
called upon to appear before the Pope’s legates, and there he 
both defended the Queen’s cause and presented a “little book” 
on the subject of the divorce. The title of this work is given in 
the State Papers as Licitum fuisse matrimonium Henr. VIII cum 
Catherina relicta fratris sui Arthuri . 4 The book was never printed, 
but a manuscript copy still exists in the Cambridge University 
Library, No. 1315 (12). It is but forty-four leaves in all. Tanner 
mentions this book also, giving it the title Defensorum matrimonii 

1 State Papers , V, 251. 

2 See below, p. 219 ff. 

3 Bridgett, Blessed John Fisher , p. 162 ff. and notes, is the only 
biographer to give any account of Fisher’s writings on the divorce (even 
the Camb. Hist . Eng. Lit. is deficient here), and his remarks are both 
inadequate and inaccurate. He says that some were printed in Spain, 
which is true, but goes on to mention three, which investigation proves 
to be all the same one, the De Causa , inaccurately described in different 
ways. He says further: “MS. copies of these treatises are in the Record 
Office, the British Museum, and the Cambridge University Library. 
The library of St. John’s College, Cambridge, possesses one of his 
printed books.” This printed book, however, is not on the divorce; 
and I have been able to find no manuscript treatise of it in the British 
Museum. The other documents 1 mention below. 

4 State Papers, IV, 5728. 


APPENDIX A 


211 


regis cum Catherina, lib. I, 1 but describes it as beginning with the 
same words as does the Cambridge manuscript. He says further, 
“ Saepissime citatur a Nic. Harpsfeld in Hist, divortii” He is 
wrong here; the book discussed by Harpsfield is not this one. 2 
The King replied to Fisher in a declaration to the judges, in which 
“the Latin vocabulary is ransacked for the choicest epithets of 
vituperation.” 3 On Feb. 6, 1530, Chapuys, writing to Charles V, 
says, “Since my last the bishop of Rochester has finished revising 
the book he lately wrote. . . . Since then he was written another.” 4 
The last previously recorded letter from Chapuys to Charles is 
dated Oct. 25, 1529. The new book by Fisher is probably the 
De Causa Matrimonii, described in the State Papers as “Fisher’s 
Second Book on the Divorce.” 5 This book was published at Com- 
pluti, Spain, in August, 1530. It consists of forty-one folios of 
weighty scholasticism, discussing the disputed passages of Leviti¬ 
cus and Deuteronomy, especially the latter, and giving opinions 
and examples on the subject from the time of the early fathers 
down. Chapuys refers to the publication of Fisher’s books in Spain 
in a letter to the Emperor dated Nov. 27, 1530, and further says 
that he has commissioned May to have two of them printed for 
distribution in Parliament. 6 On Dec. 4, he writes again, “The 
bishop of Rochester has finished a book in favour of the Queen.” 7 
It would seem that this was a later book, but further identifica¬ 
tion is impossible. 

About this time, Thomas Abel, the Queen’s chaplain, appears 
to have busied himself in her cause. Wood says that in 1529 or 
1530 “he shewed himself a zealous advocate against the divorce of 
the said queen. ... At which time he wrote, Tract, de non dis - 
solvendo Henrici & Catherinae matrimonio.” 8 Tanner mentions 

1 Tanner, Bibliotheca Britannica-Hibernica, p. 281. 

2 See below, p. 217 ff. 

3 State Papers, IV, p. cccchodx. 

4 Ibid., 6199. 

6 Ibid., IV., 6596. Although quite accessible, this book is not even 
mentioned in the D.N.B. account of Fisher. 

6 Ibid., IV, 6738. 

7 Ibid., IV, 6757. 

8 Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, I, 119. 


212 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


another book by Abel on the subject, Invicta Veritas: An Answer 
that by no manner of law it may be lawful for the King to be divorced 
from the Queen’s Grace, etc. 1 This seems to have been in English. 
It is mentioned by Wakefield in his Kotser Codicis, and, as Tanner 
says, u citat et repugnat.” Both of Abel’s books are apparently 
non-extant. The State Papers , under the year 1531, cite three 
treatises in reply to Abel, 2 one of which is entitled, A confutation 
of that answer which Master John Abell, priest, lately made against 
the Book of Determinations of the Universities in the King's cause.” 1 
This seems to refer to Abel’s second treatise. The determinations 
of the universities were not rendered until 1530; the date of the 
book containing them — another problem — is discussed below. 4 
Chapuys, writing in 1532, speaks of a book by a chaplain of the 
Queen (doubtless Abel) as being in print but prohibited by the King. 5 

Wakefield fulfilled his promise to reply to the Bishop of Roches¬ 
ter’s book by writing the Kotser Codicis R. Wakefeldi quo praeter 
ecclesiae . . . decretum, probatur conjugium cum fratria carnaliter 
cognita, illicitum . . . interdictumque esse, etc. 6 Pocock has over¬ 
thrown the date originally set for this book (1528), 7 but has come 
to no definite conclusion himself as to the correct date of either 
its writing or its publication. The matter is so involved with 
the date of Wakefield’s other book on the subject that it seems best 
to postpone the problem for the moment. 8 Suffice it to say here 
that my conclusion is that it was written immediately after Fisher’s 
first book — that is in the summer of 1529 — and that it was not 

1 Tanner, p. 1. 

2 State Papers, V, 1. 

3 There is still a question as to whether “John Abell, priest,” may 
be taken to refer to the Queen’s chaplain, whose first name was Thomas. 
The index to the volume cites the two names separately, but I can find 
no other reference to any John Abell. 

4 See below, p. 214 ff. 

6 State Papers, V, 1256. 

8 Wood correctly describes this book as the one mentioned by Bale 
and Pitts under the title of De non ducenda Fratria. 

7 Pocock, in notes to his edition of Harpsfield’s Pretended Divorce , 
p. 309. 

8 See below, p. 221. 


APPENDIX A 


213 


published until 1536. The Kotser Codicis is aimed to be a thorough 
refutation of Fisher's argument; but despite the author’s conceited 
remark that he intended to so humble his opponent that he would 
“be ashamed to wade or meddle any further in the matter,” 1 the 
book seems to have passed entirely unnoticed by the leaders on 
both sides of the controversy. 

In the summer of 1529, Cranmer was presented to the King 
by Foxe, and shortly afterwards suggested an argument in favor 
of the divorce in which Henry declared that he “had the right sow 
by the ear.” The book which resulted, at the King’s order, from 
this conversation, has had a strange history at the hands of biogra¬ 
phers and bibliophiles. A reference to it in a letter from Gardiner 
to the King, dated February, 1530, fixes its date pretty accurately. 2 
Harpsfield, who in his Pretended Divorce between Henry VIII 
and Catherine (written in Mary’s reign) attempted to refute all 
important works on the King’s side, does not even mention this 
book. Strype seems to be the only historian to have seen it, but 
it is impossible to tell from his account whether it was in print or 
in manuscript only. 3 Pocock, in his Records of the Reformation, 
prints chapter headings under the caption of “Cranmer’s book in 
favour of the divorce.” 4 Jenkyns reports the book as lost and 
repudiates the articles printed by Pocock. 6 The latter is clearly 
wrong in printing these headings as coming from Cranmer’s book, 
for, as Jenkyns points out, the Archbishop’s name on the first 
leaf of the manuscript copy (now in the British Museum) denotes 
his ownership only. Furthermore, the articles therein do not 
agree with Strype’s description of the work in question. The book, 
so far as I can find, is non-extant; but Jenkyns goes wrong in 
attempting to describe it, for not having seen it himself, he has 
no right to attribute to it points not mentioned by Strype; nor has 

1 Wakefield, letter to Henry, State Papers, IV, 3234. 

2 State Papers, IV, 6247. 

3 Strype, Memorials of Cranmer, I, 7. Todd, in his Life of Cranmer , 
I, 21, also gives an account of the book but furnishes no evidence of 
having seen it himself. 

4 Pocock, op. cit., I, 334. An annotator in Burnet’s Reformation, 
I, 146, makes a similar mistake. 

6 Jenkyns, Remains of Cranmer, I, viii and notes. 


214 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


he any authority for saying that its arguments were summarized 
in a book “published . . . by . . . Berthelet, with the judgments 
of the Universities prefixed,” by which he evidently refers to the 
Censurae. 1 Although the two are similar in some respects, they 
differ in others. Strype describes Cranmer’s treatise as showing 
that “no man, jure divino, could or ought to marry his brother’s 
widow” and that “the Bishop of Rome ought by no means to dis- 
pence to the contrary.” 2 The King was much pleased with the 
book when it appeared, and its influence in winning the English 
universities over to his side is well attested. Cranmer was des¬ 
patched in the same year to spread its gospel throughout France, 
Germany, and Italy, and even went to Rome to defend its prin¬ 
ciples in public debate before the Pope, but an opportunity was 
not granted him. 3 

In 1530, seven continental universities returned their decisions 
on the divorce question in favor of the King. These resulted in a 
weighty book, dated in the colophon April, 1530, entitled Gravis- 
simae atque exactissimae illustrissimarum totius Italiae, et Galliae 
Academiarum Censurae . . . de veritate illius propositions, Vide¬ 
licet que ducere relictam fratris mortui sine liberis ita sit de iure divino 
et naturali prohibitum: ut nullus Pontifex super huiusmodi matri- 
moniis contractis, siue contrahendis dispensare possit* Although this 
book may have been undertaken by April, this date is out of the 
question for its publication, as only one of the university decisions, 
which are printed in the first part of the volume, was rendered by 
that time. 6 Pocock says that these pages were “certainly printed 

1 An annotator in Burnet’s Reformation, I, 148, goes wrong in de¬ 
scribing the Censurae in a note regarding Cranmer’s book, as if he either 
confused the two or took them to be identical. 

2 Strype, Cranmer , I, 13. 

* From the circulation of the book, it would seem as if it must have 
been in print; but if so, it is difficult to account for its subsequent 
disappearance. 

4 Herein referred to, for short, as the Censurae. 

6 The dates of these decisions are: Orleans, Apr. 5, 1529; Paris 
(facultas decretorum), May 23, 1530; Angers, May 7, 1530; Paris 
(facultas theologicum) , July 2, 1530; Bourges, June 10, 1530; Bologna, 
n. d.; Padua, July 1, 1530; Toulouse, Oct. 1, 1530. 


APPENDIX A 


215 


after the rest of the book.” 1 I fail to see any evidence for such a 
statement, as the decisions of the universities are referred to occa¬ 
sionally throughout the work. 2 It seems much more likely that 
the book was misdated by Berthelet and that April, 1531, is the 
correct date. Further evidence on this point is: (1) There are no 
references to it in 1530. (2) It seems not to have been translated 
until 1531. (3) Fisher’s reply was not undertaken until the summer 
of 1531. (4) Vives’ reply was not published until 1532. (5) Strype 
says that the decisions of the universities were presented to the 
House of Commons in January, 1531, “and afterwards, being made 
into a book, were printed, entitled Gravissimae, etc” (giving the 
title in full). 3 (6) Three contemporary references, which seem to 
be to this book, all point toward 1531 as its date of publication. 
On Nov. 27, 1530, Chapuys writes to Charles V, “The Dean of 
the Chapel, in the King’s behalf, has presented eight instruments 
to the Archbishop of Canterbury, respecting the divorce; two 
from Paris, the others from Toulouse, Orleans, Bruges, Bologna, 
Padua, and Pavia. They are likely to publish these documents, 
as they have more influence than any book.” 4 In a later letter 
to Charles, June 6, 1531, he speaks of a book in the King’s behalf as 
“lately printed.” 5 Ortiz, writing to Charles, June 24, 1531, men¬ 
tions a “book in favour of the King.” 6 The date of the Censurae, 
then, being settled, we may attack the problem of its authorship. 
Harpsfield says that the authors were “the two archbishops of the 
realm besides divers bishops and many notable lawyers and di¬ 
vines.” 7 Strype agrees with this in substance, saying that “an 
abundance of learned men had now employed their pens in this 
argument to the number of above an hundred, whereof Dr. Cran- 

1 See Harpsfield’s Pretended Divorce, p. 309. 

2 On fols. A3, A4, C4, 14, Q4. 

3 Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, I, 216. 

4 State Payers, IV, 6738. In the same letter, Chapuys states that a 

book is “being printed” in favor of the King. I cannot identify this 
work. 

6 Ibid., V, 278. 

6 Ibid., V, 309. 

7 Harpsfield, p. 172. 


216 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


mer was one.” 1 Burnet says that “some learned men were 
appointed,” who compiled the book from all that had been previ¬ 
ously written. 2 Two writers in the Dictionary of National Biography 
have complicated matters further by identifying this book (with¬ 
out giving any evidence for so doing) with the one mentioned by 
Stokesley in a letter to Cromwell dated 1535. 3 Speaking of his 
opinion of the divorce, Stokesley says that it was expressed “in 
the King’s book that Mr. ‘Ampner’ [Foxe], Dr Nicolas, and I 
made before going over sea in embassy and was afterwards trans¬ 
lated into English, with additions and changes, by my lord of 
Canterbury.” 4 Since this journey over sea was undertaken 
towards the end of 1529, it is not possible that the book mentioned 
in this letter is the Censurae, although it may readily have been 
one of those worked over by the authors of the later volume. My 
own conclusion is that it was composed, as the older biographers 
say, by many hands, and was probably of gradual growth; that it 
may possibly have been set up tentatively as early as April, 1530, 
the references to the universities being introduced later, but that 
it certainly did not appear in print until April, 1531. The title is 
very misleading, for except for the few references en passant already 
mentioned, the universities and their views are totally ignored. 
However, the argument thrashes over the three points of the con¬ 
troversy, especially the Levitical law, in every conceivable aspect, 
and gives at length the opinions of councils, popes, saints, school¬ 
masters, and others. The Censurae was translated in November, 
1531, 6 under the title Determinations of the moste famous and moste 
excellent universities of all Fraunce and Italy , etc. The translation 
amplifies the original slightly. 6 The sentence, “The King has 

1 Strype, Fee. Mem., I, 217. 

2 Burnet, Reformation, I, 166. 

3 See article on Stokesley by A. F. Pollard and on Nicholas de Burgo 
by A. G. Little. 

4 State Papers, VIII, 1054. 

5 Ames, Typog. Antiq., I, 418, gives Nov. 7, 1530. The year given is 
conjecture only, as it does not appear in the title or colophon. One of 
the British Museum copies is identical with that described by Ames, 
but the other has the addition of the year 1531 in the colophon. 

6 The slight amplifications do not meet the expression “additions 


APPENDIX A 


217 


printed his book in English and scattered it all over the kingdom,” 
in a letter of Nov. 25,1531, from Chapuys to Charles, 1 refers doubt¬ 
less to this book. Again, in a letter of Jan. 22, 1532, Chapuys 
speaks of “the King’s book” and mentions Sir Thomas Elyot as 
one of the translators. 2 

As soon as the Censurae appeared, Fisher seems to have set 
about to answer it. Agrippa writes to Chapuys on July 21, 1531, 
“Fisher’s book is good.” 3 This refers probably to the first part 
of the reply. On Aug. 22, 1531, Ortiz writes to Charles, “May 
has ordered me to read the bishop of Rochester’s apology which 
has just been sent me from England, in which he answers two 
chapters of the book composed in favour of the King.” 4 On Oct. 
24, he writes to Chapuys for “the rest of Fisher’s apology.” 5 
Chapuys writes to Charles on Oct. 1, 1531, “The bishop of Roches¬ 
ter has finished his answer to the book printed by the King.” 6 
Following this letter in the State Payers, is inserted a notice of 
manuscript in the Record Office, under the caption “Bishop Fisher, 
His book on the Divorce, replying to the arguments of those who 
sought to prove the invalidity of the King’s marriage.” Although 
I must confess to not having read through the 198 folio pages of 
crabbedly written Latin which compose this manuscript, I am con- 

and changes” in Stokesley’s letter, above referred to, thus giving fur¬ 
ther evidence that the writers in the D.N.B. have made a mistake. 

1 State Payers, V, 546. 

2 Ibid., V, 737. Not a little confusion has arisen among bibliophiles 
through a failure to realize that there were several such sets of articles 
similar in content, but actually quite distinct. The one Pocock fell 
foul of is the Latin MS. Vesp. B5 (Brit. Mus.), entitled Articuli duo- 
decim, quibus ylane admodum demonstrabat, divortium . . . necessario 
esse faciendum, which consists of twelve propositions, each fully worked 
out. Another set, which got into print, is bound with one of the British 
Museum copies of the Glasse of the Truthe, and bears the title, Articles 
devised by the consent of the King’s council, etc. This is composed of 
eight short articles in English. 

* Ibid., V, app. 13. 

4 Ibid., V, 378. 

6 Ibid., V, 492. 

8 Ibid., V, 460. 


218 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


fident that it is not the book in question. 1 Harpsfield, in his 
Pretended Divorce, gives the substance of Fisher’s reply to the 
Censurae (which I have nowhere found dignified with a title), 
compiled from the author’s original Latin. 2 It is not possible to 
tell whether or not Harpsfield abbreviated Fisher’s original in trans¬ 
lating it; as given, it occupies almost 100 quarto pages. Harps¬ 
field states that he has never seen a printed copy of this book and 
doubts if it was ever published. In the form given it in the trans¬ 
lation, it is a close and detailed refutation, point by point, of the 
Censurae, written in a straightforward and common-sense manner 
that is much more convincing than the ponderous scholasticism 
of its opponent. 

The cause for the Queen was further strengthened at this point 
by a book from Reginald Pole, which is said to have so affected the 
King that he almost gave up further effort for the divorce. Strype 
says that it “was penned about the year 1530.” 3 He is mistaken 
here. The book was the result of a conference which Pole had with 
the King in the late spring of 1531. Moreover, Cranmer’s letter 
to the Earl of Wiltshire describing the book is dated June 13, 1531. 
Tanner gives its title as De non dissolvendo connubio regis Henr. 
VIII et Catherinae . 4 Strype says, “the book, though the argu¬ 
ment of it chiefly depended on divinity, proceeded more on political 
principles than divine.” 5 Cranmer, in the letter just mentioned, 
says that “it was writ with that eloquence that if it were set forth 
and knowne to the commen people, I suppose yt were not possible 
to persuade them to the contrary.” 6 The book was in manuscript 

1 This MS. is in two handwritings. The first runs to thirty folios. 
The second writer wrote only in a narrow column down one side of the 
page, so that his part would not make more than thirty-five full folios. 
The MS. is imperfect, lacking both beginning and ending. I do not 
know why it is ascribed to Fisher. 

2 Harpsfield, op. cit., Part I. 

3 Strype, Cranmer, I, 9. 

4 Tanner, p. 603. 

6 Strype, ibid. 

6 Strype, ibid., II, No. 1; also State Papers, V, app. 10. This letter 
gives a pretty full account of the contents of the book. 


APPENDIX A 


219 


only, probably in Latin, and was evidently shown only to a very 
few. Pole wrote the King’s council in 1537 that he had not yet 
had it printed, on account of his love for his Majesty, 1 and doubt¬ 
less it never was, although the substance of it was more than 
likely incorporated in his Pro Ecclesiasticae Unitatis Defensione. 2 

Almost simultaneously with Pole’s treatise, there was published 
in English a book entitled A Glasse of the Truthe, in the form of a 
dialogue, the only work of a popular nature in the whole contro¬ 
versy. Most of the bibliophiles who have noticed this book are 
inclined to date it 1532 — Pocock says “as early as September, 
1532 ” 3 — because it is mentioned in a letter of Sept. 17, 1532, and 
because, according to Pocock, it was answered by a Latin work 
published at Luneburg in 1533. All are wrong here. The correct 
date is 1531, as the book is mentioned as “lately printed” in a 
letter from Chapuys to Charles, dated June 24, 1531. “The 
English,” he says, “have lately printed a little dialogue ... a 
thing so feeble and cold that it is a disgrace to them.” 4 Pocock is 
also wrong on two points in regard to Vives’ book, to which his 
vague reference evidently applies. It was in fact an answer to the 
Censurae and was published at Luneburg in 1532. The author¬ 
ship of the Glasse is still a matter of doubt, but in all probability 
it was written by the King’s advisers, perhaps with his help. 
Latin and French translations were made at his command in 1532, 
and a German one was projected but seems to have failed. Nicholas 
Hawkins was appointed to push the distribution of the book on the 
continent, and Sir Richard Croke performed a similar mission at 
home. A pretense was maintained that the King was the author, 
but I doubt very much if he had more than a hand in it, at the 
most. Croke, writing from Oxford on Sept. 23, 1532, says that he 
has not had much success in persuading the people of the royal 
authorship but that the book itself had done more than all previ¬ 
ous ones in winning them over to the King’s side. 5 Hawkins, in 

1 State Papers , XII, 444. 

2 See below, p. 222-223. 

3 Pocock, Records , I, xxi. 

4 State Papers , V, 308. 

5 Ibid., V, 1338. 


220 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


a letter to Henry, calls the book “your Highness dialogue,” but 
in speaking of certain quotations which had been omitted from 
the translation, he refers the King to “Master Cranmer or Master 
Gudric [Goodrich] to write them in, word for word, as they be 
in the originals.” 1 

This work is entirely different from any other in the controversy, 
since it not only is written for the man in the street rather than 
for the scholar or the court, but also makes a show of some literary 
pretentions. The preface describes it as a “clere glasse wherein 
the whiche ye shall see . . . the playne truthe of our mooste noble 
and lovinge princes cause, which by unmete and unkynde handlynge 
hath hytherto had so overlonge a staye”; but the intelligent reader 
will be more likely to agree with Chapuys that it is a sorry affair. 
The argument, if it may be so called, is entirely on the side of the 
King; and for this reason, the dialogue can hardly be said to be 
spirited, since each of the disputants speaks only to have his ideas 
confirmed by the listener, who plays the part of Greek chorus with 
fervor and despatch. Harpsfield judges the book pretty fairly in 
saying, “You shall find them [the arguments] none other in sub¬ 
stance but such as he took out of the book that the Bishop of 
Rochester hath already confuted. 2 . . . And all this is conveyed 
in a dialogue between a sorry doting divine and a sorry lewd lawyer, 
framing out of their own heads new divinity and new laws eccle¬ 
siastical.” 3 Still, one can readily understand how the ignorant 
public might have been influenced by the book, as Croke says 
they were. 

Vives’ reply to the Censurae, entitled Non esse . . . 'prohibitum, 
quin Summus Pontifex dispensare possit, ut frater sine liberis fra- 
tris uxorem ligitimo matrimonio sibi possit adiungere, etc., and pub- 
fished at Luneburg in September, 1532, presents no difficulties. 
Some vague references in letters of 1531 4 inform us that Vives 
had expressed himself before that year on the subject, but these 
treatises were evidently not printed and were probably very brief. 

1 State Papers, V, 1660. 

2 That is, those of the Censurae. 

3 Harpsfield, p. 170. 

4 State Papers, V, 46 and app. 13 and 14. 


APPENDIX A 


221 


There is slight evidence that Vives committed some of his ideas to 
paper as early as 1527. 1 The Non esse prohibitum consists of 162 
pages of the usual scholastic a priori argument. The date is given 
on the title page. 

This book seems to be the last that appeared in print before 
the actual divorce took place. Wakefield, however, presented 
another book on the subject, the dating of which is the most diffi¬ 
cult problem we have yet encountered. It is necessary to consider 
first the date of his earlier Kotser Codicis. I have already said 
that Pocock has overthrown the date first set for it, but he offers 
none of his own except in showing that its publication must have 
been later than Dec. 8, 1529. 2 In a letter printed with the Kotser 
from Wakefield to Fisher, Stokesley is spoken of as (( Londoni- 
nensis iam episcopus.” As Stokesley was not made Bishop of 
London until Nov. 27, 1530, we are able to shove the date of 
publication along one year more. The reference on the first page 
of the treatise itself to “a book thought to be by Vives or Agrippa” 
must apply to Vives’ book above mentioned, which did not bear 
any name on its title page. As this book was not published until 
September, 1532, the Kotser cannot be dated earlier than this. 3 
Wakefield’s second book, Syntagma de Hebraeorum codicum incor- 
ruptione, etc., complicates matters still more. This book was 
printed by Wynkyn de Worde and therefore before 1535, since 
Worde’s will was proved on January 19 of that year. The sen¬ 
tence on the verso of the first leaf, Primum tamen quaestionem per 
Johannem Fissherium . . . propositam atque responsionem quam illi 
codici meo adhibui annos antehac fere septem in medium his asseram , 
gives us the information that the Kotser was written seven years 
previously. I have already demonstrated that the Kotser could not 
possibly have been published before 1530, and probably not before 
1532 (unless, of course, the extant copies are not first editions, 

1 See article on Vives in D.N.B. 

2 See above, p. 212. 

* The British Museum catalogue gives “1532?”. Ames, Typog. 
Antiq., I, 417, gives 1530, but this is evidently conjecture only. The 
references in the Kotser to Abel’s book (see above, p. 212) might be 
useful if we could get more definite information about Abel. 


222 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


which is very unlikely). 1 Furthermore, in the undated letter 
from Wakefield to Fisher, Wakefield says that Foxe came to con¬ 
sult him 11 nomine Regis ” some seven years earlier about the mar¬ 
riage of a man with his brother’s widow. Seven years previous 
to either 1530 or 1532 would be before Henry had thought of a 
divorce and before Foxe was connected with the court. The only 
way out of this difficulty is to suppose that the Kotser was written 
in the summer of 1529 (being the book referred to by Wakefield 
in his letter of that date 2 ), but was not published until seven years 
later, when the references to Vives and Abel and the letters men¬ 
tioned were added, and that the reference in the Syntagma is to it 
in its manuscript and not its printed form. The Syntagma itself, 
written u annos fere septem ” later than the Kotser , would thus 
seem to have been published in 1536 also. But Worde, the printer, 
was dead by that time. The only possible solution of this second 
difficulty is to suppose that Wakefield spoke inaccurately in say¬ 
ing “ annos fere septem,” for it is out of the question to think the 
Kotser written before 1529, as I have already shown. The Syn¬ 
tagma is a small Latin pamphlet of only fifty-six pages. It was 
projected in 1524 as a part of the author’s earlier work, Oratio de 
laudibus et vtilitate tuum linguarum Arabicae, Chaldicae et Hebrae- 
icae, etc., but the controversy over the royal divorce altered alto¬ 
gether the nature of its intended content. 3 Harpsfield gives an 
outline of it in his Pretended Divorce, where he attempts to refute 
its arguments. 

When Henry repudiated the Pope as head of the church, he 
appealed to Pole, then in Italy, for his opinion on the whole situa¬ 
tion. In the book with which Pole replied, Reginaldi Poli ... ad 
Hemricu octavum . . . pro ecclesiasticae unitatis defensione libri 
quatuor, he re-expressed his opinion upon the King’s divorce, 
among other things pointing out that by marrying Anne he was 

1 There is no record of there having been a second edition, nor is 
there any reason for supposing that a book of so little importance 
would have appeared more than once. 

2 See above, p. 208. 

3 See Maitland, Early Printed Books in the Lambeth Library, Nos. 
509 and 510, and Note GG. 


APPENDIX A 


223 


violating the very law which he had established in order to divorce 
Catherine. 1 Tanner dates the book 1536; the catalogue of the 
British Museum dates its copy “[1538],” which may be a second 
edition. 2 Wood describes the book as one “wherein he answers 
many things that Samson had wrote to please the king; presseth 
the king earnestly to return to the obedience of Rome; exciteth the 
emperor to revenge the injury done unto his aunt, (the divorced 
queen) and many other things.” 3 On the question of the divorce, 
the writer certainly does not spare his sovereign. 4 

Besides the books discussed above, Wood mentions John Holy- 
man’s Defensio Matrimonii Reginae Catherinae Cum Rege Henrico 
Octavo and Bishop Tunstall’s Treatise in Defense of the Marriage 
of Queen Katherine with Henry 8; but on these books I am unable to 
find any information whatever. 

A very few books were put out on the subject of the divorce after 
the immediate excitement had died down. The only one of these 
worth mentioning here is Harpsfield’s Pretended Divorce between 
Henry VIII and Queen Catherine, which has been referred to many 
times already. It was written in Mary’s reign, but more accurate 
dating seems impossible. 6 It existed in manuscripts only, four of 
which are still extant, until Pocock printed it in 1878. This is the 
longest and most comprehensive work of all on the subject. 
Harpsfield explains that his purpose in writing it was to justify 
Sir Thomas More for refusing to take the oath ratifying the whole 

1 See above, p. 207, n. 1. This part of Pole’s treatise is translated by 
Bridgett, Blessed John Fisher, p. 148, n. 

2 It seems more likely, however, that Tanner is mistaken and that 
the two books are identical, 1538 being the correct date. The work was 
finished by May, 1536 (according to D.N.B .), but in 1537 Pole wrote 
the King’s council that his love for Henry had caused him to withhold 
his first book on the divorce from publication. This does not seem 
compatible with the sentiments expressed in the Pro Ecclesiasticae 
nor with the fact that immediately upon the appearance of the latter, 
the King divested Pole of all his dignities in England. 

3 Wood, I, 285. 

4 The divorce is discussed in Lib. Ill, especially f. Lxxv ff. 

6 Pocock makes no apparent attempt to date accurately the writing 
of the book. 


224 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


course of the King’s actions; and this he does by showing that 
Henry had been in the wrong throughout. The treatise is divided 
into three parts, as follows: (1) reasons to justify the marriage of 
Henry and Catherine, in the form of a reproduction of Fisher’s 
reply to the Censurae ; (2) refutation of four other important books 
on the subject (that of Egidius Bellamera, long before this time; 
that of Marcus Mantua, a contemporary lawyer of Padua; the 
Syntagma of Wakefield; and the Glasse of the Truthe), together 
with a history of the divorce; (3) a discussion of the parliamentary 
acts after the divorce and an account of Henry’s later political and 
matrimonial difficulties. This book is of extreme value for the 
fight it throws on the history of the divorce, on the books which 
it reviews, and on conditions of matrimony and divorce at the 
time of writing. 


APPENDIX B 


THE DATE AND OCCASION OF MILTON’S FIRST 
DIVORCE TRACT 

Edward Philips, Milton’s nephew, is responsible for the state¬ 
ment that The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce was conceived 
about Michelmas (Sept. 29), 1643. This approximate date was 
accepted until Masson pointed out that Thomason, the collector 
of manuscripts at the British Museum, had added Aug. 1 to the 
year 1643 on the title page of the Museum copy. Thomason was 
in the habit of affixing dates to the pamphlets he acquired; and 
as these seem clearly to refer to his acquisition of the pamphlets 
rather than to their publication, we may take them as the latest 
possible times for the appearance of tracts otherwise undated. 
A comparison of Thomason’s dates for the year of 1643 and there¬ 
abouts with those in the Stationers’ Register, shows that the former 
vary from one day to several months later than those of registration. 
This being the case, if we accept Thomason’s date at all, we may 
say that Milton’s tract appeared certainly as early as some time 
in July. 

Against the acceptance of this date, stands the statement of 
Philips that Milton turned his thoughts to the subject of divorce 
because the delay of his wife in returning from her visit to her 
parents “so incensed our author that he thought it would be dis¬ 
honourable ever to receive her again after such a repulse, so he 
forthwith prepared to fortify himself with arguments for such a 
resolution, and accordingly wrote two treatises, by which he under¬ 
took to maintain that it was against reason and the enjoinment 
of it not provable by Scripture for any married couple disagreeable 
in humour and temper or having an aversion to each [other] to 
be forced to be yoked together all their lives.” Philips continues, 
“The first was his Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, of which 
there was printed a second edition with some additions. The 

225 


226 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


other in prosecution of the first was called Tetrachordon. Then 
better to confirm his own opinion by the attestation of others, he 
set out a piece called The Judgment of Martin Bucer. . . . Lastly 
he wrote an answer to a pragmatical clerk ... his Colasteron.” 1 2 

Before Masson pointed out that Philips was probably wrong 
in stating that the first tract was not started until Sept. 29, biog¬ 
raphers, in attempting to explain its cause, imagined that Milton 
must have become disgusted with his young wife and have written 
the tract as a result of domestic unhappiness. Since Masson’s 
discovery, they have been unable to repudiate Thomason’s date 
and yet unwilling to give up their ingeniously built theories on 
the subject. The result in biographies of Milton, including Mas¬ 
son’s own, has been that the writer has presented both conflicting 
accounts, either saying naively, as Masson does, that he doesn’t 
know what on earth to do about it, or else, like Pattison, suppos¬ 
ing some offense on Mary’s part of sufficient magnitude to start 
her husband writing tracts during his honeymoon. 3 

In attempting to overthrow the whole structure of this specimen 
of scholarly architecture, I shall start with the top story first, that 
is, the contribution of the late biographers. This obviously rests 

1 Philips, Life of Milton , in Godwin’s Lives of E. and J. Philips, 
p. 365 ff. Godwin has not helped matters by putting the wrong years 
in the margin of his reprint. These are not present in the original. 

2 Masson suggests timidly as a possible way out that Philips’ date 

of Milton’s marriage may be considerably too late, but hastily shies 
off from the results of such a supposition. Pattison, in casting about 
for some offense to saddle upon Mary, suggests that perhaps she 
refused Milton the marriage right. Both seem to overlook the fact that 
Philips’ statement is that the tract was first conceived as a result of 
Mary’s protracted visit at Michelmastide, so that neither explanation 
clears up the case at all. To consider Philips wrong in the matter of 
the tract’s date in order to consider him right in the matter of its 
cause, or vice versa, is no solution of the problem, especially as the 
critics cannot agree on which to throw overboard. Pattison’s sugges¬ 
tion simply shows his ignorance of existing divorce practices, for the 
condition of affairs he suggests would have rendered a divorce even 
more readily obtainable by Milton than it already was. 


APPENDIX B 


227 


on two things, the evidence of the tract itself, as a foundation, 
and Philips’ statement as an intervening story. 

It must be admitted that Mary’s apparent desertion of her 
husband suggests that there was some trouble between them, 
although her delay in returning from her visit might have orig¬ 
inally been caused by the entreaties of her friends and relatives 
alone; but if there was any such dissatisfaction or contrariety of 
mind, the facts involved show that it was felt by her rather than 
by him, since he made repeated efforts to hasten her return. More¬ 
over, the muck-rakers who in later controversies with him at¬ 
tempted to assail his character, and even dug up his college career 
to support their assertions, were unable to find a single fact of 
his domestic life that might be interpreted to his disadvantage. 
It should be carefully noted also that not a word appears in the 
early biographies — those of Philips, Toland, Aubrey, and Wood — 
to the effect that he had any criticism to make upon his wife’s 
character or fitness of disposition. This is all later invention. 
Furthermore, it must be pretty clear from my discussion of the 
agitation and writing on the subject of divorce that there is no 
need of looking into a man’s private life in order to explain why 
he should have turned his thoughts to this problem, especially 
when he expresses other reasons for his action, as Milton does. 
Thus the Doctrine and Discipline needs no personal justification from 
the author’s own life. Furthermore, Milton’s ideas on the subject 
remained the same after he was happily reunited with his wife. 

The above facts remove both the supposed evidence of the 
first tract in favor of the traditional cause of its writing and also 
the argument drawn from it for the acceptance of Philips’ date. 
Let us now consider the statement of Philips himself, the second 
story of our scholarly structure. As to the cause of the tract, 
Philips’ theory — for it certainly was theory — that it was written 
in order to establish grounds whereby Milton might obtain a 
divorce, in the light of my discussion of divorce legislation and 
practice at the time, is ridiculous on the face of it. Milton had 
ample cause for divorce, according to the teaching and practice 
of his own church, on the ground of desertion, in case his wife 
failed to return. We have incontrovertible evidence, also, that he 


228 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


was well aware of the fact, as I have already shown. 1 A further 
proof of this, if we can believe Philips at all, lies in the fact that 
a marriage between Milton and a daughter of Dr. Davis was 
“more than probably thought to be in agitation” at the time of 
Mary’s delayed return. 2 

To summarize, my position stands thus: (1) there was ample 
cause for Milton to write a tract on divorce whatever his own 
married life may have been; (2) by the existing practices of the 
Puritan churches, Milton had recognized grounds for divorce, and 
knew it, if his wife failed to return to him; (3) the only reasons 
for Philips’ belief that the tract was planned about Michelmas 
and for our acceptance of his statement to that effect, are thus 
removed; (4) the evidence, then, naturally favors Thomason’s 
testimony, given in 1643, as against Philips’, given in 1694. The 
points in the argument against me represent at best a case of 
“together we stand, divided we fall.” I think I have shaken all 
of them pretty severely; and if I can overthrow one completely 
the others must go by the board in consequence. The most im¬ 
portant one, without which the others become absolutely unsup¬ 
ported, is the date given by Philips for the conception of the 
tract. On this point, I submit the following evidence in addition 
to that given by Thomason: 

(1) Philips is absolutely untrustworthy. He seldom makes a 
definite statement, but in several places where he does, he is con¬ 
siderably out of the way, for example, in the dates of Milton’s 
birth, death, his entrance in Cambridge, the publication of Para¬ 
dise Lost, and some minor events. 3 That he was very uncertain 

1 Sea above, p. 86. 

2 The fact, if it be a fact, that Milton contemplated a second mar¬ 
riage at this time, has appeared to some to argue that his first was 
unhappy. This reasoning is ingenious but hardly convincing. A man 
deserted by his wife would be much more likely to seek another if his 
first venture at the altar had been happy; nor, if it had been unhappy, 
would he rush quite so precipitously into marriage again as Philips 
asserts Milton was ready to do. 

3 These he gives as occurring in 1606, in 1673, at the age of fifteen, 
and in 1666, respectively. The correct facts are: Milton was born Dec. 


APPENDIX B 


229 


of the facts connected with the divorce tracts, is shown by his 
saying that the Doctrine and Discipline and the Tetrachordon were 
planned together as the result of his wife’s behavior and were 
followed by the Judgement of Martin Bucer, whereas we know that 
the Tetrachordon resulted from the criticisms on the first tract, 1 
that it did not appear until 1645, and that it was preceded by the 
Martin Bucer tract. 

(2) The second edition of the Doctrine and Discipline is dated by 
Thomason, Feb. 2, 1643-4. As shown above, this date is prob¬ 
ably some time later than the tract’s actual appearance, but let 
us accept it nevertheless as the day of publication. The second 
edition was an entire reworking of the first, increasing it more 
than one-third of its original length, and introducing new authori¬ 
ties, whose works required considerable study. It hardly seems 
possible that the tract could have been originally conceived, 
planned, written, and published, the subject reinvestigated, and 
the first edition reworked and published in its new form, all in the 
space of four months (Sept. 29 - Feb. 2). 

(3) Milton, in his Colasteron says, “Whenas the Doctrine and 
Discipline had now a whole year been published a second time 
. . . this idle pamphlet comes reefing forth against the first edi¬ 
tion only.” 2 The Answer, to which Milton refers here, is recorded 
in the Stationers’ Register, on Oct. 31, 1644, and was dated by 
Thomason Nov. 19, 1644. If Milton is speaking accurately in 
saying “a whole year,” it is evident that Thomason’s date for the 
second edition is considerably later than that of its publication, 
as many of his dates are. The effect of this evidence is either to 
shorten down the time between the original conception of the 
tract and its second publication (already too short, if we accept 
Philips’ date) or else to show that it was started before Philips 
says. 

9, 1608; died Nov. 8, 1674; entered college at the age of sixteen; and 
published Paradise Lost in 1667. In the light of such glaring errors, it 
seems hardly worth while to consider Philips’ statements as to minor 
dates worth anything at all. 

1 So Milton says himself, Prose Works, II, 115-116. 

2 Milton, II, 243. 


230 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC DELATIONS 


(4) Milton, in his Second Defense , says clearly: “When the 
bishops could no longer resist the multitude of their assailants, I 
had leisure to turn my thoughts to other subjects; to the pro¬ 
motion of real and substantial liberty. . . . When, therefore, I 
perceived that there were three species of liberty which are 
essential to the happiness of social life; religious, domestic, and 
civil; and as I had already written concerning the first, and the 
magistrates were strenuously active concerning the third, I deter¬ 
mined to turn my attention to the second, or domestic species.” 1 2 3 * * * * 
The overthrow of the bishops, both in their controversy with 
the Smectymuuns and in their opposition in the House of Lords 
to the new church government, took place in 1642, 2 before Milton 
was married. 

The obvious conclusions from the whole of the above discus¬ 
sion are: (1) Philips, who was but fifteen years old at the time 
of the publication of the tract, and who was not at all in sympathy 
with his uncle’s principles, was simply conjecturing as to the date 
and occasion of it when he wrote his biography of Milton fifty-one 
years later, and that he was mistaken, as in other places, on both 
points. (2) The Doctrine and Discipline was planned in 1642, as 
Milton clearly states, was published on or before Aug. 1, 1643, and 
had no connection whatever with his own domestic life. (3) The 
theories as to Milton’s disgust with his young wife and his dis¬ 
gruntled attitude towards the marriage state (he who was thrice 
married), the scenes depicted as resulting therefrom (including, 
alas, such triumphs of the imagination as Masson’s picture of the 
parting of husband and wife and his account of the excitement 
caused in the lobby of the House of Commons by the scandal), 
and finally the calumnies cast upon this unromantic and rather 
humdrum couple, might well be omitted from future biographies. 8 

1 Milton, VI, 405. 

2 See above, p. 85. 

3 To save some one else unnecessary labor, it may be worth while to 

state that I have carefully run down the following clues without gain¬ 

ing any further information: (1) Palmer’s sermon, The Glasse of 

God’s Providence, Aug. 13, 1644, referred to by Milton, Prose Works , 

II, 113; (2) Grotius’ Annotationes in Libros Evangeliorvm , 1641, men¬ 

tioned by Milton, ibid., I, 345; (3) Prynne’s Queries, referred to by 


APPENDIX B 


231 


Milton, ibid., II, 240; (4) Featley’s Dippers dipt, 1644-5, mentioned 
by Milton, ibid., II, 116 (John Featley is mistaken in implying, in his Dr. 
D. Featley revived, pp. 64 and 70, that this tract preceded The Gentle 
Lash, pub. Jan. 2, 1643-4); (5) Howell’s letter, mentioned by Masson, 
Life of Milton, III, 62; (6) the possible reference to Milton’s divorce 
ideas in the Annotations of the Books of the Old and New Testament 
(see above, pp. 93-94 and n. 1). 


APPENDIX C 


DIRECTIONS FOR MATRIMONY FROM 
HARRINGTON’S BOOK 1 

HOWE MATRYMONY IS MADE WITH THE CYRCUMSTAUCE AND 
SOLEMPNYTE AS APPERTAYNETH THERTO 

As touchynge the seconde partye / it is to be knowen that 
man and woman dothe entre this holy ordre and sacramente of 
matrymony by expresse and free consente of bothe partyes/ that 
is to say: when both the man and the woman dothe consente bothe 
in one tyme to be husbonde and wyfe/ and that consente doo shewe 
eyther to other by expresse wordes of the tyme presente/ as by 
these wordes or other lyke/ I take the to my wyfe/ or I frome this 
tyme forwarde wyll haue the to my wyfe. And yf the woman 
also incontynentely expresse the same or other lyke wordes. then 
there is contracte matrymony betwyxte them. . . . But and they 
vse wordes of the tyme to come As yf the man saye thus/ I shall 
take the to my wyfe. And the woman saye/ I shall take the to 
my husbonde or other lyke wordes of tyme to come/ then it is noo 
matrymony. But promyse to make matrymony. . . . This con¬ 
sent whiche maketh matrymony ought to be in bothe theyr soules 
by true loue so yt ether shuld consent to loue other aboue all ye 
creaturs of the worlde. It shulde also be in theyr bodyes by true 
observance and kepynge . . . theyr bodyes to other clene and 
pure from all other creatures. It shulde also be in theyr temporall 
gooddes by a due comunyon so that eyther of them shuld consent 
that suche goodes as they haue or shall haue shall be comune 
betwyxte them. 

Moreouer this consent whiche doth make matrymony ought to 
be grouded of a good cause and intent/ yt is to saye those yt wyll 
entre in to this holy ordre . . . must doo it pryncypally for one 
of thre causes/ that is to saye/ other to the entente for to br}mge 
forth chyldren to be norysshed in the lawes & seruyce of god and 

1 Harrington, Comendacions of Matrymony, f. Aiifr ff. 

232 


APPENDIX C 


233 


that is ye moost pryncypall cause ... or els secondarly for 
remedy ayenst synne/ as suche as ben inclyned naturally to the 
synne of ye flesshe and wyll not endeuer them selfe to lyue chaste 
may make matrymony for that cause to avoyde the synne of 
fornycacyon. ... Or elles thyrdely for solace and helpe whiche 
eyther may have of other without the acte of flesshely medlynge. 

. . . Secondarely there be other causes whiche mouen rather to 
take one pson than another/ as ryches/ beaute/ refourmynge of 
peace or suche other. . . . But suche as dothe not marry pryn- 
cypally for one of the thre causes afore sayde but rather pryncy- 
pally for ryches beaute or frends or such other do not marry godly 
nor gracyously/ but they synne deedly/ and the deuyll hath grete 
power of them. . . . Moreouer this consent which doth make 
matrymony ought to be expressed & shewed in open and in honest 
places afore & in the psence of honest & laufull wytnesses called 
specyally therefore, ii. at ye leest/ for & it be otherwyse . . . yt 
is called matrymony cladestinat whiche for many causes is for- 
boden by the lawe. . . . 

And when matrymony is thus laufully made/ yet the man 
maye not possesse the woman as his wyfe/ nor the woman the 
man as her husbonde . . . afore suche tyme as that matrymony 
be approued and solempnysed by oure mother holy chyrche/ and 
yf they do in dede they synne deedly. And to that solempnyte 
are many thynges requyred by the lawe. Fyrste is that the banes 
must be asked iii sondayes or other festyuall dayes. . . . And 
euery man and woman whiche dothe knowe ony impedymente or 
haue ony lykely coniecture of ony impedymente are bounde for to 
come and at the leest denounce and shewe the same to the curate. 
. . . The curate also him selfe is bounden for to make dylygente 
serche and inquisycyon for to knowe yf ony impedymente be or 
ony lykelyhode of impedymente to let the matrymony. . . . 

More ouer it is to understonde that he sayde solenysation of 
matrimony which is required to be made in the face of the chirche 
may not be made euery tyme of the yere. . . . 

And this solempynsacyon oughte to be made in the face of the 
chyrche in the clere daye after the sonne be rysen and with hon¬ 
our e and reuerence. 


APPENDIX D 

CONTENTS OF TYPICAL DOMESTIC BOOKS 

I. Chapter Headings from Perkins’ Christian Oeconomie 

Chaps. Pages 

1. Of Christian Oeconomie, and of the Familie. 1 

2. Of the Household seruice of God. 7 

3. Of Maried folkes. 8 

4. Of the Contract [i.e. spousals de praesentQ . 6 

5. Of the choice of persons fit for Marriage. 44 

6. Of consent in the Contract. 8 

7. Of Reiection or Refusall of the Contract. 7 

8. Of Mariage [i.e. the solemnization]. 14 

9. Of the duties of married persons. 12 

10. Of the Communion of married folkes, and of due beneuo- 

lence. 12 

11. Of the Husband. 6 

12. Of the Wife. 4 

13. Of the Parent. 12 

14. Of the Sonne. 6 

15. Of the Master. 4 

16. Of the Seruant. 7 

17. Of the Master of the familie or goodman of the house.... 9 

18. Of the Mistresse of the familie or goodwife of the house... 3 

II. Outline of Gouge’s Domestical Duties 1 
I Treatise. 

An exposition of those parts of the Scriptures upon which 
the book is based: 133 topics, referred to Scriptural 
texts; 103 pages in all. 

1 This summary is made from the table of contents of the book. 
Many minor topics cannot be classified; such are omitted. 

234 


















APPENDIX D 


235 


II Treatise. 

Part I. Concerning the Marriage Contract, 28 topics, 
20 pages. 

1. What persons are fit to marry, 8 topics. 

2. Suitable matches, 5 topics. 

3. The contract [i.e. spousals de praesentQ, 10 topics. 

4. The religious ceremony, 1 topic. 

5. The purpose of marriage, etc., 5 topics. 

Part II. Mutual Duties of Husband and Wife, 45 topics, 
32 pages. 

1. Unity and chastity, 8 topics. 

2. Love, peace, etc., 6 topics. 

3. Of absence from one another, 3 topics. 

4. Of prayers, 4 topics. 

5. Mutual care and help, 9 topics. 

6. Of keeping up family respect and credit, 9 topics. 

7. Joint government of the family, 2 topics. 

8. Hospitality, 2 topics. 

9. Charity, 2 topics. 

III Treatise. The Wife’s Duties, 74 topics, 44 pages. 

1. Wife’s inferiority and subjection to husband, mild¬ 

ness, obeisance, modesty in apparel, meekness of 
speech, etc., 17 topics. 

2. The necessity of the husband’s consent in family 

matters, in the management of the house, and in the 
disposition of property, 5 topics. 

3. Various kinds of subjection on the part of the wife to 

the husband, 11 topics. 

4. The wife’s obedience, meekness, forebearance, humil¬ 

ity, cheerfulness, etc. (also the opposite qualities) in 
various matters, 26 topics. 

5. Husband and wife in general, the former resembling 

Christ, and the latter the church, 5 topics. 

IV Treatise. The Husband’s Duties, 76 topics, 40 pages. A 
detailed but poorly organized account of the husband’s 
authority and superiority over the wife and of how 


236 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


these should be used to the best advantage, under such 
captions as: 

Of husbands wise maintaining his authority. 

Of husbands courteous accepting their wives reuerend 
carriage. 

Of an husbands manner in teaching his wife. 

Of undue reproofe. 

Of husbands beating their wives. 

Of an husband prouiding for his wife. 

Of husbands constancy in loue. 

V Treatise. Children's Duties, 64 topics, 36 pages. 

1. Love, fear, and obedience to parents, 11 topics. 

2. Of children’s entrance into business or profession, 3 

topics. 

3. Of Parents’ consent in the marriage of children, 7 topics. 

4. Obedience and submission of children to parents under 

various conditions, 20 topics. 

5. Care of parents in sickness, age, and death, 8 topics. 

6. Obedience to others over them, 3 topics. 

VI Treatise. Duties of Parents to Children, 79 topics, 48 pages. 

1. General care and love of children, 8 topics. 

2. Birth and nourishment of a child, 8 topics. 

3. Baptism, 6 topics. 

4. Nurture, 5 topics. 

5. Instruction in manners and profession, 6 topics. 

6. Instruction in piety, 3 topics. 

7. General points in the nurture, instruction, and correc¬ 

tion of children, 13 topics. 

8. Providing them with calling or profession, 4 topics. 

9. Providing for them in marriage, 4 topics. 

10. Duties of parent upon death of child, 8 topics. 

11. Duties of foster parents, guardians, and others, 9 

topics. 

Vfl Treatise. Servants’ Duties, 43 topics, 30 pages. 

1. Fear and reverence of masters, 6 topics. 

2. Obedience, etc., to masters, 10 topics. 


APPENDIX D 237 

3. Different manners of serving (with diligence, quick¬ 

ness, etc.), 5 topics. 

4. Of servants’ faithfulness in various offices, 11 topics. 

5. Motives for good service, 4 topics. 

VIII Treatise. Masters’ Duties to servants, 1 49 topics, 26 pages. 

1. Choice of servants, 2 topics. 

2. The master’s authority and charge over servants, 16 

topics. 

3. Management of servants’ affairs and duties, 26 topics. 

III. Griffith’s Bethel 
Reprint of Table of Contents 
A Plat-forme of the whole Building 

Question 1 Pag. 2. 

How may I serve God as a member of a familie? 

Answer 

When you are some part of Gods building 


Secondly 

p. 7. 

What is Gods building? 


A weU-order’d familie 

p. 8. 

What is a well-order’d familie? 


That which hath orderly { Members. 


Fourthly 

p. 9. 


What is the rule whereby both head, and members must 
be squar’d and order’d? 

The written word of God, contain’d in the Canonicall 
bookes of the old and new Testament. 

1 The relations of the servants to the household, according to 
Gouge, are entirely the concern of the master. In his treatise of the 
wife’s duties, he gives her charge of the household only in case her 
husband is “ very blockish and stupid,” or unfit to manage his affairs 
on account of 11 some distemper, wound, or sickness.” Most writers 
allow the wife more authority in household affairs. 


238 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


Fifthly 

May not then an house bee govern’d by policy? 

It may; so the worke of the braine hinder not the 
worke of the conscience. 

Sixthly 

How may I bee sure that my House is built by God? 
Timber. 

Framing. 

When it is God’s Setting up. 

Finishing. 

Furnishing. 

What is Gods Timber? Swmthly 
Single persons: (who if they cannot abstaine, they must 


p. 12. 


p. 18. 


Men, or Women. 


marrie) j Old 1 
and they are \ Young J 

Eighthly 

How must Old men be framed? 
Sober. 


p. 19. 


p. 30. 


They must be 


Honest. 
Discreet. 
Sound in 


They must 


Faith. 

Love. 

( Patience. 

Ninethly p. 114. 

How must Old Women be framed? 

Be of such behaviour as becommeth holinesse. 
Not be false-accusers. 

Not given to much Wine. 

Be teachers of honest things to younger Women. 

10. p. 141. 

How must young j j be framed? 

Remember their Creatour in the dayes of 
their youth. 

They must Be sober-minded, and flye the lusts of youth. 
Honour the person of the Aged. 

Feare the Lord. 






APPENDIX D 


239 


11. p. 223. 

Seeing that a familie built by God, stands upon 
a foundation, and that foundation is mariage in 
the Lord: tell me what mariage is? 

It is a convenant of God, whereby all sorts of people 
may, of two, bee made one flesh; for 
Multiplying of an holy seed. 

The Avoiding of fornication. 

Mutuall comforting of each other. 


12. p. 244. 

The our mariage may bee in the Lord, what should 
wee chiefely doe before we marrie? 

We may do well to f A right choyce. 
see that wee make \ An holy contract. 


13. p. 245. 

What should we looke into in our choyce? 

{ Choose not within the degrees forbidden. 

Take more care for inward goodnesse, 
than outward goods 


14. p. 255. 

How may we so choose that (probablie) we may 
have vertuous Wives? 

Report. 

Lookes. 

Talke, and silence. 

Apparell. 

Company. 

Education. 


By 


15. p. 

What is an holy contract? 

A marriage-desiring promise between two persons: 
with consent 
( Parents. 

\ Parties. 


269 . 


Of 




240 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


16. p. 273. 
That our marriage may bee in the Lord, what things 

especially should accompanie it? 
f Gift of the Parent. 

The j Blessing of the Priest. 

[ Mutuall rejoycing of Friends. 

17. p. 280. 
What must follow a godlie marriage? 

f Cohabitation. 

\ Communion. 


18. p. 287. 

The foundation of a godlie familie being thus laid; 
and the upper building standing in relations betweene 
Man, and Wife; Parents, and children; Maisters, and 
servants, say first, what are the common duties of the 
Husband, and his Wife? 

T ° { Be'faithfuil to } CaCh 0ther ' 


19. p. 

What is the particular dutie of the Husband? 

Dwell with his Wife like a man of Knowledge. 
He must Give her honour 

Leave Father, and Mother and cleave unto her. 


316. 


20. p. 332. 

What is the particular dutie of the Wife? 

She must be subject to her Husband. 


21 . 

What are the duties of parents to their Children? 

Naturally. 

Bring them up 


p. 334. 


They must 


Civilly. 
Religiously. 

Dispose of them to ( ?? mG . ca ^ ng ' 
{ Marriage. 






APPENDIX D 


241 


p. 366. 


What are the duties of Children? 

Reverence. 

Obedience. f to their parents. 
Thankefulnesse. J 
Love to each other. 


They are 


379. 


WRat are the duties of Maisters? 

Choose their servants by the feare of God. 
Enjoyne them la- f Measure, 
bour but not above \ Strength. 
Recompense their diligence by given 

{ Meate. 

Drinke. 

Cloathing. 


They must 


They must 


What are the duties of Servants? 

Be subject. 

Please their Maisters in all things. 
Not answer againe. 

Be faithfull. 

25. 

How must Gods building be finished? 

By an orderly govern- f Father j of the familie 
ment under the 1 Mother J 


What are the duties of the Father of the familie? 
' Be carefull that his f Every day. 
house-hold serve God \ On the Sabbath. 
Provide for it. 

L Exercise disciphne in it. 


W 

CD 

CD 

B 

S 


p. 383. 


p. 391. 


p. 393. 


p. 412. 


What are the duties of the Mother, or Mistris of the 
familie? 






242 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


{ Keepe at home. 

Governe the house in her place. 

Give the portion of food in her house-hold. 


28 . p 

Gods building being thus framed, and finish’d; how 
may we procure Gods furniture for our houses? 

Getting our goods by honest labour. 

Buying. 

Selling. 

Letting. 

Borrowing. 

Lending. 

29 . p 
Gods building being finish’d, and furnish’d; what 

must every member of the same doe as the summe of 
their dutie? 

They must I ^ eare { the King. 

[ Not meddle with them that be seditious. 


By 


Doing, as wee would 
bee done unto, in . . 


80 . p 

You have hitherto taught us how to serve God in life; 
now say (in one word) how may we serve him even in 
death? 

You must die in the Lord: and this you then only doe, 
when you prepare for death, by a j patent end 


. 418 


. 429 


. 453 




BIBLIOGRAPHIES 


I. Early Books of Domestic Relations, etc. 

II. Books on Henry VIII’s Divorce 

III. Later Books of Reference 

These bibliographies contain by no means all the books that have 
been examined for this work, among which are many whose titles are 
sueggstive but whose contents are worthless for our purpose. Well- 
known books to which no page reference has been made are also omitted. 
In the first two lists, the dates given for publication are those of first 
editions except where noted. In all cases, the edition first named is 
that here used. Books marked with a star have not been available. 

I. Early Books of Domestic Relations etc. 

A. , 0., The Uncasing of Heresie, [Louvain?] 623 [1623]. 

Agrippa, H. C., Commendation of Matrimony (tr. David Clapham), 

London, 1545. [40pp. 8°] 

-, * De Nobilitate & Praecellentia Foeminei Sexus, etc. (tr. David 

Clapham), 1542. 

Alday, John, see Bouaistuau, P. 

Anonymous, Anonymous books are listed under their titles. 
Answer to a Book, Intituled, The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, 
An, London, 1644. 

Apologie or Defense of svch trve Christians as are commonly (but 
vniustly ) called Brovvnists, An, [Amsterdam?], 1604. (By 
Barrow and others. 1st ed. Dort., 1590.) 

Asylum Veneris, or a Sanctuary for Ladies, etc. London, 1616. 
Averell, William, A dyall for dainty darlings, rockt in the cradle 
of securitie. A glasse for all disobedient sounes to look in. A 
myrrour for vertuous maydes, London, 1584. 

Aylmer, John, An Harborwe for faithfull and trewe Subjectes against 
the late bloune Blaste, etc., Strassburg, 1559. 

Ayrault, Pierre, A Discovrse for Parents Honour and Authoritie 
(tr. John Budden), London, 1614. 

B. , J., see Viret, P. 



244 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


B., R., see Brathwait, R. 

B., T., see Primaudaye, P. de la. 

Baillie, Robert, A Dissvasive from the Err ours of the time, London, 
1645. 

Bansley, Charles, Pryde and abuse of women, [1540-1550]. 

Barckley, Richard, A Discovrse of the Felicitie of Man. Or his 
Summum bonum, London, 1603. 

Barclay, A., see Mancinus, D. 

Barrow, Henry, A Brief Discovery of the False Churches, etc., 
London, 1707 (1st ed. Dort, 1590). 

Batty, Bartholomaeus, The Christian man’s Closet, etc. (tr. Wm. 
Lowth), London, 1581. 

Becon, Thomas, Homily against Whoredom, in Early Works of 
Becon (Parker So.), Cambridge, 1843. 

-, Worckes (containing The Boke of Matrimony [115pp. fol.], 

and the Catechism), London, 1564-60-63. 

Bercher, William, Nobylytie off Wymen, 1559. (Roxb. Club, 
London, 1904-5.) 

Beze, Theodore de, Tractatio de repudiis et divortiis, etc., Geneva, 
1569. 

Biblia, dat is De gantsche Heylighe Schrift, etc., Delft, 1582, and 
Leyden, 1589. 

Bishops’ Book, see Institutions of a Christian Man. 

Blandy, W., see Osorio, J. 

Blount, Ed., see Ducci, L. \ 

Bodenham, John, Politeuphuia; Wits Commonwealth, London, 
1597. 

Boke of Mayd Emlyn, The, John Scot, [n.d.]. 

Bouaistuau, Pierre, Theatrum Mundi (tr. J. Alday), London, 
[1566?]. 

-, See also Chelidonius, T. 

Bradshaw, William, English Puritanisme, [Amsterdam?], 1605. 

Brathwait, Richard [Philogenes Panedonius, pseudonym], Ar’t 
asleepe Husbandf A boulster lecture, London, 1640. 

-, The English Gentleman, London, 1630. 

-, The English Gentlewoman, London, 1631. 

-, The Good Wife, [R. B.], London, 1619. 


BIBLIOGRAPHIES 


245 


Brinsley, John, A Looking-Glasse for Good Women, etc., London, 
1645. 

Brown, Robert, A Booke which sheweth the life and manners of all 
true Christians, etc., Middelburg, 1582. 

Bryskett, Ludowick, A Discovrse of Civill Life, London, 1606. 

Bucer, Martin, De Regno Christi, Basel, 1557. 

Budden, J., see Ayrault, P. 

Bugenhagen, Johann, De Conjunctio episcopum, Wittenberg, 
1525. 

Bullinger, Henry, The Christen state of Matrimonye (tr. Cover- 
dale), London, 1541. [156pp. 8°] 

Bunny, Edmund, Of Divorce for Adulterie and Marrying againe, 
etc., Oxford, 1610. 

Burroughes, Jeremiah, An Exposition of the Prophesie of Hosea. 
[London], 1643. 

C., R. [Robert Cleaver?], A Godly Form of Hovseholde Gouernement, 
etc., London, 1598. [392pp. 8°]. 

C., R., Gent., The Happy Mind, [London], 1640. 

Carter, Thomas, Carters Christian Commonwealth, London, 
1627. [275pp. 8°] 

Cartwright, Thomas, A Directory of Church-government. An¬ 
ciently contended for, and as farre as the Times would suffer, 
practiced by the first Non-conformists in the daies of Queen 
Elizabeth (tr. from Travers’ Latin), London, 1644. (First 
printed in 1584 but suppressed.) 

-, A full and plaine declaration of Ecclesiasticall discipline owt 

of the word of God, etc. (tr. from Travers’ Latin), Middelburg, 
1574. 

Catechisme of the Christian Religion with the Confession of the Faith, 
A. As revised by the Synod of Dordrecht (tr. M. C. Coorne), 
Middelburg, 1721. 

Caxton, see Le Grand. 

Chelidonius, Tigurinus, A most excellent Hystorie of . . . Chris¬ 
tian Princes (tr. from Latin into French by Bouaistuau and 
from French into English by James Chillester), London, 1571. 

Chillester, J., see Chelidonius, T. 

Clapham, D., see Agrippa, H. C. 



246 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


Coke, Edward, The Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of 
England , London, 1669. 

Commyssion unto all those whose wyves he thayr masters, A, Lacy, 
[1564-5]. 

Complaynt of them that he to soone maryed, A, Wynkyn de Worde, 
1535. 

Confession of faith of certayne English people, living in exile in the 
low countreys, The, contained in the Apologie or Defense of 
. . . Brownists. 

Confessions of Faith, Catechisms, Directories, Form of Church- 
Government, Discipline, &c. . . .of the Church of Scotland, The, 
Edinburgh, 1725. (Reprints of earlier documents.) 

Confession de Foy des Eglises Reformees du Pais Bas, etc., La, Rot¬ 
terdam, 1726. (1st ed., Leyden, 1669.) 

Coverdale, M., see Bullinger, H. 

Curtaine Lecture, A, (Dedication signed T. H. [editor?], prob¬ 
ably Thos. Heywood), London, 1637. 

Dekin, H., see Herman V. 

Dekker, Thomas, The Bachelars Banquet, London, 1603. 

Directory of Public Worship, London, 1645. 

Discovrse of the Married and Single Life, A, London, 1621. 

Display of Duty, A., London, 1589. 

Donne, John, Works, London, 1829. 

Dove, John, * Doctoris Pyi impium dogma, [1604?]. 

-, Of Divorcement, London, 1601. 

Ducci, Lorenzo, Ars Avlica or The Courtiers Arte (tr. Ed. Blount), 
London, 1607. ^ 

Dyke, William, * A Discourse on Matrimony, London, 1642. 

E., T. [Thomas Edwards?], The Lawes Resolvtions of Womens 
Rights, London, 1632. 

Edwards, Thomas, Antapologia: or, A Full Answer to the Apolo- 
geticall Narration, etc., London, 1644. 

Elyot, Thomas, The defense of good women, London, 1545. 

Erasmus, Desiderius, Annotationes in Novum Testamentum, 
Basel, 1519. 

-, Matrimonii Christiani Institutio, Basel, 1526. [442pp. 8°] 

-, Matrimonii Encomium (tr. Richard Taverner under the title 

A ryght frutefull Epystle . . . in laude and prayse of Matry- 
mony, London, [1536?]). H n 



BIBLIOGRAPHIES 


247 


^ Faret, N., The Honest Man: or, The Art to please in Court (tr. Ed. 
Grimstone), London, 1632. 

Featley, Daniel, Kara^aTTrLaraL KarairTvaTOi . The Dippers 
dipt, or The Anabaptists Dvck’t and Plvng’d Over Head and 
Eares, London, 1645. 

Fenner, Dudley, The Artes of Logike and Rethorike (containing 
The Order of Household), [Middelburg], 1584. 

Ferne, John, The Blazon of Gentrie, London, 1586. 

Fiore, The boke of wisdome otherwise called the Flower of Vertue 
(tr. J. Larke), London, [1565]. 

Fit John, John, A Diamonde Most precious , London, 1577. 
[75pp. 4°] 

Forme of Prayers and administration of the Sacraments, &c. Vsed 
by the English Congregation at Geneva: and approved by . . . 
John Calvin, The, London, 1643. (Reprinted from first edition 
of 1558.) 

Fox, John, Acts and Monuments, London, 1843-49. (Written in 
1554.) 

-, See also Reformatio Legum. 

Fuller, Thomas, A Sermon on Reformation, London, 1643. 
Gibbon, Charles, A Work worth the Reading, London, 1591. 

-, * Compendium Form of Domestical Duties, 1589. 

Gibson, Anthony, A Womans Woorth, London, 1599. 

Godolphin, John, Repertorium Canonicum, London, 1678. 
Gosson, Stephen, Pleasant Quippes for Upstart Newfangled Gen¬ 
tlewomen, London, 1595. 

Gosynhyll, Edward, Prayse of all women, 1541. 

Gouge, William, Domestical Duties, London, 1626. (2nd ed.) 
[386pp. fol.] 

Griffith, Matthew, Bethel: or, Forme for Families, London, 1633. 
[528pp. 4°] 

Grimstone, E., see Faret, N. 

H., T., see Curtaine Lecture, A. 

Haec-Vir: or, The Womanish-Man: Being an Answere to a late 
Booke intitulit Hic-Mulier, London, [1620?]. 

Hall, Joseph, Salomons Divine Arts, London, 1609. [32pp. 8°] 
w Hannay, Patric, A Happy Husband, London, 1618. 

Harrington, William, In this boke are conteyned the comendacions 



248 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


of matrymony / the maner & fourme of contractyng solempnsy- 
ynge and lyuyng in the same, etc., London, 1528. [42pp. 4°] 

Hemmingius, Nicolas, Libellus de Coniugio, Repudio, & Divortio, 
Leipsig, 1572. 

Herman V, A briefe and plaine declaration of the duety of maried 
folkes, etc. (tr. Hans Dekin), London, [1588?]. [33pp. 8°] 

Hervet, G., see Xenophon. 

Heywood, John, A Dialogue . . . in a matter concerninge two 
maner of manages, London, 1561. 

Heywood Thomas, The Exemplary Lives and Memorable Acts of 
Nine the Most Worthy Women of the World, London, 1640. 

-, TwaiKeLov: or, Nine Bookes of Various History concerninge 

Women, London, 1624. 

-, See also Curtaine Lecture, A. 

Hic-Mvlier: or, The Man-Woman; Being a Medicine to cure the 
Coltish Disease of the Staggers in the Masculine-Feminines of 
our Times, [London, 1620?]. 

Hooper, John, Early Writings (Parker So.), Cambridge, 1843. 

Howson, John, Uxore dismissa propter Fornicationem aliam non 
licet superinducere, Oxford, 1606. (1st ed. 1602.) 

Hundreth poyntes of evell huswrifrye, An, Aide, 1565-6. 

Hyrde, R., see Vives, J. L. 

Institutions of a Christian Man, London, 1537. 

K., T., see Tasso, T. 

King's Book, see Necessary Doctrine, etc. 

Kingsmill, Andrew, A Viewe of mans estate . . . where unto is 
annexed a goodlie advise . . . touching manage, London, 1574. 
(Written in 1560.) 

Knox, John, The first Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous 
Regiment of Women, [Geneva], 1558. 

-, The History of the Reformation in Scotland, Glascow, 1761. 

(Written in 1567; apparently first printed in 1586.) 

Kyd, T., see Tasso, T. 

Late Assembly of Divines Confession of Faith, The, London, 1651. 

Larke, J., see Fiore. 

Lechfield, Thomas, Plaine-dealing: or, Newes from New England, 
London, 1642. 




BIBLIOGRAPHIES 


249 


Le Grand, Boke of Good Manners (tr. Caxton), London, 1487. 
[118pp. fol.] 

Little Nonsuch, London, 1646. 

Lowth, W., see Batty, B. 

Mancinus, Dominicus, A Myrrour of Good Manners (tr. Alex. 
Barclay), London, 1523. 

Markham, Francis, The Booke of Honour, London, 1625. 

Milton, John, The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, etc., London, 
1643. 

-, Prose Works (ed. C. Symmons), London, 1806. 

Muld Sacke: or The Apologie of Hic-Mulier: To the late Declama¬ 
tion against her, etc., London, 1620. 

Munda, Constantia, [pseudonym] The Worming of a mad Dogge: 
or, a Soppe for Cerberus the Iaylor of Hell, London, 1617. 

N., A. [Anthony Nixon], The Dignitie of Man, London, 1612. 

Necessary Doctrine for any Christian Man, The, London, 1543. 

Niccholes, Alexander, A Discovrse of Marriage and Wiving, etc. y 
London, 1620. 

Nixon, Anthony, see N., A. 

Norden, John, The Labyrinth of Mans Life, London, 1614. 

* Order of Household Instruction, London, 1596. 

Osorio da Fonseca, Jeronimo, The five Bookes of ... H. Osorius 
. . . of Civill and Christian Nobilitie (tr. Wm. Blandy), Lon¬ 
don, 1576. 

Overbury, Thomas, A Wife, London, 1614. 

Page, Thomas, * A Demonstration of Family Duties, London, 1643. 

Paget, Ephriam, Heresiography: or, A description of the Here- 
tickes, etc., London, 1645. 

Paget, John, An Arrow against the Separation of the Brownists, 
Amsterdam, 1618. 

Palmer, Herbert, The Glasse of Gods Providence, [London], 1644. 

Panedonius, P., see Brathwait, R. 

Payne and sorowe of ewytl Mary age, The, Wynkyn de Worde, [n.d.]. 

Paynell, T., see Vives, J. L. 

Peacham, Henry, The Compleat Gentleman, London, 1622. 

Perkins, William, Christian Oeconomie (tr. Thos. Pickering), 
London, 1609. (Written in 1590.) [175pp. 8°] 



250 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


Perkins, William, The Golden Chain , London, 1591. 

Philotus, Ane verie excellent and delectabill Treatise intitulit Philotus, 
Edinburgh, 1603. IN v 

Pickering, T., see Perkins, W. 

Primaudaye, Pierre de la, The French Academie (tr. T. B.), 
London, 1586. 

Proude Wyves Paternoster, The, Kynge, 1560. 

Pye, Thomas, * Epistola ad Jo. Howsonum contra novum ejus 
Dogma de Divortiis Judaeorum, London, 1603. 

R. , T. [Thomas Rogers], The Anatomie of the minde, London, 

1576. 

Rainolds, John, A Defence of the Ivdgment of the Reformed Churches, 
etc., [London], 1609. 

Raleigh, Walter, Remains of Sir Walter Raleigh, London, 1675. 

Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum (ed. John Fox), London, 1571. 

Rich, Barnaby, The Excellency of good women, London, 1613. 1 

-, My Ladies Looking Glasse, London, 1616. M N 

Ridley, Thomas, A Viewe of Civile and Ecclesiasticall Law, Oxford, 
1676. (1st ed., 1607.) 

Robinson, John, A iust and necessarie Apologie of certain Christians 
no lesse contumeliously than commonly called Brownists or 
Barrowists, [Leyden?], 1625. (1st. ed., Latin, 1619). 

Robson, S., The Covrt of ciuill Courtesie, London, 1591. 

Rogers, Daniel, Matrimoniall Honovr, London, 1642. [387pp. 4°] 

Rogers, T., see R., T. 

Rous, Francis, The Art of Happiness, London, 1619. 

S. , S., * Brief Instructions for Fami'ies, 1583. 

Schole-howse of women, The, Wyer, [n.d.]. 

Segar, William, Honor Military and Ciuill, London, 1602. 

Selden, John, De Jure naturali et Gentium juxta Disciplinam 
Hebraeorum libri septem, London, 1640. 

Shrewde and Curste Wyfe lapped in Morrelles skin, A, Jackson, 
[n.d.]. 

Smith, Henry, A Preparative to Manage, London, 1591. [96pp. 8°] 

Snawsel, Robert, A Looking Glasse for maried Folkes, London, 
1610. 

Sowernam, Ester, [pseudonym] Ester hath hang’d Haman, etc., 
[London, 1617]. 



BIBLIOGRAPHIES 


251 


Speght, Rachel, A Mouzell for Melastomus, the Cynicall Bayter 
of, and foule mouthed Barker against Evahs sex, London, 1617. 

Stafford, Anthony, The Gvide to Honovr, London, 1634. 

Stockwood, John, A Bartholmew Fairing for Parentes, London, 
1589. 

Swetnam, Joseph, see Teltruth, T. 

Swetnam the Woman-hater, arraigned by women, London, 1620. 

Swinburne, Henry, A Treatise of Spousals, London, 1686. (Writ¬ 
ten c. 1600.) 

T., R., see Tasso, H. and T. 

Tasso, Hercules and Torquato, Of Manage and Wiuing (tr. 
R. T.), London, 1599. 

Tasso, Torquato, The Housholders Philosophic (tr. T. K. [Thomas 
Kyd]), London, 1588. 

Taverner, R., see Erasmus, D. 

Teltruth, Thomas (i.e., Joseph Swetnam), The Araignment of 
Lewde, idle, froward, and vnconstant women, London, 1615. 

Testimony to the Truth of Jesus Christ, A, London, 1647. 

Tilney, Edmund, The Flower of Friendship, etc., London, 1568. 

Tindale, John, * Matrimonium. (But see p. 114, n. 1, above.) 

Topsell, Edward, The House-holder; or, Perfect Man, [London^, 
1610. 

Torshell, Samuel, The Womans Glorie, London, 1645. 

Touteville, Daniel, * Saint Paul's Threefold Cord, London, 1635. 

Tractatus modestas et Christianus, contra reprehensiones T. Pyi 
(Published with Howson’s Uxore dismissa), Oxford, 1606. 

Travers, Walter, Ecclesiasticae Disciplinae, et Anglicanae Eccle- 
siae ab ilia aberrationis, plane e verbo Dei, & dilucida explicatio, 
La Rochelle, 1574. 

-, See also Cartwright, T. 

Twelve mery gestys of one called Edyth, Rastell, 1525. 

Vaughan, William, The Golden Grove, moralized in three Bookes, 
London, 1608 (1st ed., 1599). [59pp. 8°] 

Viret, Pierre, The Schoole of Beastes, intituled, the good Hous- 
holder, etc. (tr. J. B.), London, 1585. 

Vives, J. L., Instruction of a Christian Woman (tr. Rich. Hyrde), 
London, [1540?J. [310pp. 4°J. (Original, De Institutione Foe- 
minae Christianae, 1523.) 


252 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


Vives, J. L., The Office and duetie of an Husband (tr. Thos. Paynell), 
London, [1553]. [410pp. 8°] 

W., R., * Order of Matrimony , London, 1580. 

Wedlocke, Walter, A lyttle treatyse called the Image of Idlenesse, 
conteynynge certeyne matters moued betwene Walter Wedlocke 
and Bawdin Bacheler, London , [1550?]. 

Whately, William, A Bride-bush, London, 1619. [220pp. 4°] 

Whitford, Richard, A werke for housholders/ or for them yt haue 
the gydynge or gouernaunce of any company , London, 1533. 
[43pp. 8°] (lsr ed., 1531.) 

Whitgift, John, Works (Parker So.), Cambridge, 1851-53. 

Wiclif, John, Of Weddid Men and Wifis and of Here Children also, 
in Select English Works of John Wyclif (ed. Arnold), Oxford, 
1871. 

Willoby, Henry, Willobie his Avisa: or, the true picture of a 
modest Maide, and of a chaste and constant wife, London, 
1594. 

Wright, Leonard, A Display of dutie, did with sage sayings, pythie 
sentences, and proper similies, London, 1589. V) W 

Xenophon, Treatise of an Houshold (tr. G. Her vet), London, 1532. 
[105pp. 8°] 

II. Books on Henry VIIFs Divorce 

Disputed points as to date, authorship, etc., are discussed in 
Appendix A, above. 

Abel, Thomas, * Invicta Veritas: An Answer that by no manner of 
law it may be lawful for the King to be divorced from the Queen’s 
Grace, etc., MS. c. 1530. (London Record Office.) 

-, * Tract, de non dissolvendo Henrici & Catherinae matrimonio, 

MS. c. 1530. (Record Office.) 

Articles devised by the consent of the King’s council, etc., pub. with 
A Glasse of the Truthe, London, [1531]. 

Articuli duodecim, quibus plane admodum demonstrabat, divortium 
. . . necessario esse faciendum. MS. c. 1530. (British Museum.) 
Printed in Pocock’s Records of the Reformation, I, 334. 

Censurae, see Gravissimae, etc. 


BIBLIOGRAPHIES 


253 


* Confutation of that answer which Master John Abell, priest, lately 
made against the Book of Determinations of the Universities in 
the King's cause, A, MS. c. 1530. (Record Office.) 

Cranmer, Thomas, * His book in favor of the King (apparently 
non-extant). MS.? 1530. 

Determinations of the moste famous and moste excellent universities 
of Italy and Fraunce, that it is so unlefull for a man to marie his 
brothers wyfe, that the pope hath no power to despence therwith , 
The, [London, 1531]. [308pp. 8°] 

Fisher, John, De Causa matrimonii Regis Angliae liber, [M. 
de Eguia, Compluti, Spain], 1530. (Also published by Alcala 
de Henares, 1530.) 

-, * Defensorum matrimonii regis cum Catherina, etc. Begin: 

u Licitum fuisse matrimonium Henr. VIII.” MS. 1529. (Cam¬ 
bridge Univ. Lib.) 

-, His reply to the Censurae, trans. in Harpsfield, Pretended 

Divorce, Pt. I. 

-, MS. in Record Office. (See above, p. 217.) 

Glasse of the Truthe, A, London, [1531]. 

Gravissimae atque exactissimae illustrissimarum totius Italiae, et 
Galliae Academiarum Censurae . . . de veritate illius proposi¬ 
tions, Videlicet que ducere relictam fratris mortui sine liberis 
ita sit de iure divino et naturali prohibitum: ut nullus Pontifex 
super huiusmodi matrimoniis contractis, siue contrahendis dis- 
pensare possit, London, 1530, [i.e. 1531]. [142pp. 4°] 

Harpsfield, Nicholas, Treatise on the Pretended Divorce between 
Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, London, 1878. (Written 
in Queen Mary’s reign.) 

Holyman, John, * Defensio Matrimonii Reginae Catherinae Cum 
Rege Henrico Octavo. 

Pole, Reginald, * De non dissolvendo connubio regis Henr. VI11 
et Catherinae, MS.? 1531. 

-, Reginaldi Poli ... ad Henricu octavum . . . pro ecclesias¬ 
tical unitatis defensione libri quatuor, [1538]. 

Tun stall, Cuthbert, * Treatise in Defense of the Marriage of 
Queen Katherine with Henry 8. 

Vives, Non esse, neque diuino neque naturae iure prohibitum, quin 



254 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


Summus Pontifex dispensare possit, ut frater siue liberis fratris 
uxorem ligitimo matrimonio sibi possit adiungere, adversus 
aliquot Academiarum censuras tumulturia ac perbreuis Apolo¬ 
gia siue confutatio, Luneburg, 1532. 

Wakefield, Robert, Kotser Codicis R. Wakefeldi quo praeter 
ecclesiae . . . decretum, probatur conjugium cum fratria carnal- 
iter cognita, illicitum . . . interdictumque esse, etc., London, 
[1536?]. (Written in 1529.) 

-, Syntagma de Hebraeorum codicum incorruptione, [London, 

1535?]. 


III. Later Books of Reference 

Ames, Joseph, Typographical Antiquities (ed. Herbert), London, 
1785. 

Bacon, Leonard, The Genesis of the New England Churches, New 
York, 1874. 

Biographia Britannica (ed. Kippis), London, 1778. 

Bishop, J. P., New Commentaries on Marriage, Divorce, and Separa¬ 
tion, Chicago, 1891. 

Blunt, J. H., The Doctrine of the Church of England, London, 
1868. 

Bradford, William, History of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-16Iff, 
Boston, 1912. 

Brewer, J. S., and Gairdner, James, Letters and State Papers of 
the Reign of Henry VIII, London, 1862, etc. 

Bridgett, Thomas E., Life of Blessed John Fisher, London, 1888. 

Brook, Benjamin, The Lives of the Puritans, London, 1813. 

Brydges, Samuel E., Censura Literaria, London, 1805-9. 

Burn, Richard, Ecclesiastical Law, London, 1842. 

Burnet, Gilbert, The History of the Reformation (ed. Pocock), 
Oxford, 1865. 

Cambridge History of English Literature, The (ed. A. R. Waller and 
A. W. Ward), New York, 1908, etc. 

Child Marriages, etc., see Furnivall. 

Coudert, F. R., Marriage and Divorce Laws in Europe, New 
York, 1893. 




BIBLIOGRAPHIES 255 

Einstein, Lewis, The Italian Renaissance in England, New York, 
1902. 

Esmein, A., Le Manage en droit canonique, Paris, 1891. 

Featley, John, Featlaei IlaXt^ yevecna: or Dr. D. Featley revived, 
etc., London, 1660. 

Friedberg, Emil, Das Recht der Eheschliessung, Leipsig, 1865. 

Furniyall, F. J., Child Marriages, Divorces, and Ratifications, 
. . . A.D. 1561-6, London, 1897. 

Gage, Matilda J., Women, Church and State, Chicago, 1893. 

Hanbury, Benjamin, Historical Memorials relating to the Inde¬ 
pendents, London, 1839. 

Heylyn, Peter, Aerius redivivus: or The History of the Presby¬ 
terians, Oxford, 1670. 

Hill, Georgiana, Women in English Life, London, 1896. 

Howard, George E., A History of Matrimonial Institutions, Chi¬ 
cago, 1904. 

Inderwick, F. W., The Interregnum, London, 1891. 

Jeaffreson, J. C., Brides and Bridals, London, 1872. 

Jenkyns, Henry, The Remains of Cranmer, Oxford, 1833. 

Kitchin, S. B., A History of Divorce, London, 1912. 

Knight, Samuel, The Life of Erasmus, Cambridge, 1726. 

Lingard, John, The History of England, London, 1849. 

Maitland, F. W., Roman Canon Law in the Church of England, 
London, 1898. 

Maitland, G. R., Early Printed Books in the Lambeth Library, 
London, 1843. 

Masson, David, Life of John Milton, Cambridge, 1859-1894. 

Neal, Daniel, The History of the Puritans, London, 1822. 

Philips, Edward, The Life of Milton (written in 1694, published 
with Wm. Godwin’s Lives of Edward and John Philips), Lon¬ 
don, 1815. 

Phillimore, G. G., Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England, 
London, 1895. 

Pocock, Nicholas, Records of the Reformation, Oxford, 1870. 

Pollock, F., and Maitland, F. W., The History of English Law, 
Cambridge, 1895. 


256 


ENGLISH DOMESTIC RELATIONS 


Renton, A. W., and Phillimore, G. G., The Comparative Law of 
Marriage and Divorce, London, 1910. 

Rushworth, John, Historical Collections , 1618-1648, London, 
1659-1701. 

Rye, William, England as seen by Foreigners in the days of Eliza- 
beth and James the First, London, 1865. 

Scobell, Henry, A Collection of Acts and Ordinances of Parlia¬ 
ment, 1640-1656, London, 1658. 

Smith, Munroe, Marriage in Universal Cyclopedia. 

Sparrow, J. Shaw, The English House, London, 1908. 

Stale Papers, see Brewer and Gairdner. 

Statutes of the Realm, The, London, 1817. 

Stevenson, R. L., Familiar Studies of Men and Books, London, 
1882. 

Strype, John, Ecclesiastical Memorials, Oxford, 1822. 

-, Memorials of Thomas Cranmer, Oxford, 1812. 

Tanner, Thomas, Bibliotheca Britannica-Hibernica, London, 1748. 

Thwing, C. F. and C. F. B., The Family, Boston, 1887. 

Todd, H. J., The Life of Archbishop Cranmer, London, 1831. 

Watt, Robert, Bibliotheca Britannica, Edinburgh, 1824. 

Whitmore, W. H., Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, Boston, 1887. 

Wilkins, D., Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hibemiae, London, 
1737. 

Wilkins, H. J., The History of Divorce and Remarriage, London, 
1910. 

Winthrop, John, The History of New England from 1630-1649 
(ed. Savage), Boston, 1853. 

Wood, Anthony a, Athenae Oxonienses (ed. Bliss), London, 1813- 
1820. 

Woolsey, Theodore D., Divorce and Divorce Legislation, New 
York, 1882. 



INDEX 

Titles of books are here given in abbreviated form; for exact titles 
see bibliographies. 


A., O., 123 
Abel, J., 212 

Abel, T., 211, 212, 221, 222 
Academie Frangoise, 181, 184 
Acts and Monuments, 114 
Acts and Ordinances, 34, 36, 56, 
58, 99 

Acts of Parliament, 

25H8cal9, 61 

32H8ca38, 61-62, 64, 65, 85 
abolition of bishoprics, 92 
Cromwell’s marriage and di¬ 
vorce act, 58, 99 
overthrow of bishops, 85 
Star Chamber, 85 
Admonition to Parliament, 78 
Aerius redivivus, 30, 44 
Affinity, see Levitical degrees 
Agrippa, 116, 161, 221 
Ainsworth, 70 
Alday, 244 
Allott, 184 

All’s Well, 19, 197, 198 
Ambrose, St., 113 
Ames, 107, 113, 118, 216, 221 
Ampner, 216 

Anabaptists Duck’d, 98, 231 
Anatomie of the minde, 183 
Anatomy of Abuses, 126 
Anatomy of Melancholy, 183, 186, 
187 


Annotationes in Nov. Test. (Eras¬ 
mus), 111 

Annotationes in Lib. Evangeliorum 
(Grotius), 230 

Annotations in Old and New Test. 

(Reform divines), 93, 94, 231 
Ann ulm ent of marriage, see di¬ 
vorce 

Answer to Apologeticall Narra¬ 
tion, 43, 52 

Answer to Doctrine and Discipline, 
86, 96, 98, 99, 148, 229 
Answere to Hic-Mulier, 168-169 
Antapologia, 43, 52 
Anything for a Quiet Life, 196 
Apologie of Brownists (Robinson), 
43, 53 

Apologie or Defense of Brownists 
(anon.), 38, 48, 53 
Apologie of Hic-Mulier, 168—169 
Apologeticall Narration, 43 
Aquinas, 9 

Araignment of women, 168 
Arden of Faversham, 193, 199 
Ariosto, 146 
Aristotle, 113, 181, 188 
Arrow against Brownists, 43 
Ars Avlica, 182 

Ar’tasleepe Husband f, 145-146,169 
Art of Happiness, 187 
Art to Please in Court, 182 


258 


INDEX 


Artes of Logike and Rethoric, 130 
Arthur (prince), 7, 207, 208, 209 
Articles of 1552, 12, 40, 118 
Articles of King's council, 217 
Articuli duodecim, 217 
As You Like It, 46 
Ascham, 157, 173 
Assembly of Divines (1643), 92 
Assembly of Divines Confession of 
Faith, 88 

Athenae Oxonienses, 116, 211, 223 
d’Aubign6, 174 
Aubrey, 227 

Augustine, St., 113, 122, 150 
Averell, 189-190 
Avisa, 190 
Aylmer, 147, 172 
Ayrault, 135 

B., J., 130 
B., R., 145 
B., T., 181 

Bachelars Banquet, 164, 167 
Bacon, F., 144, 189 
Bacon, L., 38, 53, 66 
Baillie, 38, 48, 52, 55, 70 
Bale, 212 
Bandello, 201 
Banns, 6, 20, 41, 50 
Bansley, 163 
Barckley, 186 
Barclay, 143, 146, 181 
Barrow, 46-47, 79 
Bartholmew Fairing for Parentes, 
131 

Bastwick, 32 
Batty, 131 

Becon, 15, 69, 75, 111, 114, 121, 
125, 126, 127-129, 155-156, 
157-158 


Bellamera, 224 
Bellarmino, 82, 84 
Bercher, 161 
Berners, 170 
Berthelet, 209, 214 
Bethrothal, see spousals de prae - 
senti 

Bethel, 133, 134, 136, 137-138, 
237-242 
Beza, 82 

Biblia (Delft and Leyden) 38 
Bibliotheca Britannica-Hibernica, 
211, 212, 218 
Bibliotheca Erasmina, 111 
Bishops' Book, 117 
Biographical Chronicle, 190 
Blanchette, 206 
Blandy, 181 
Blazon of Gentrie, 183 
Blount, 182 
Blunt, 117, 118, 119 
Boccaccio, 146 
Bodenham, 184 
Boleyn, Anne, 13, 207, 209 
Boleyn, Mary, 207 
Boke of Good Manners, 102-106 
Boke of Mayd Emlyn, 164 
Boke of Matrimony, 75, 121, 125, 
127-129, 155-156 
Book of Discipline, 30 
Book of Form of Common Prayer , 30 
Booke of Honour, 185 
Bothwell, 64 
Bouaistuau, 129, 153 
Bowes, 160 
Bradford, 38, 53 
Bradshaw, 31-32, 79, 81 
Brathwait, 145-146, 161, 162- 
163, 186 
Brentinus, 75 


INDEX 


259 


Bride-bush, 69, 86, 136 
Brides and Bridals, 3, 6, 22-23, 59, 
171 

Bridgett, 210, 223 
Brief e declaration of duety of maried 
follces, 130 

Brief Discoveries of False Churches, 
46-47 

Brief Instructions for Families, 130 
Brieux, 206 
Brinsley, 151, 153 
Broke, 201 

Brook, 43, 46, 67, 132 
Brown, 26, 30, 44, 45, 46, 51, 
76-78 

Brownists, 30, 38, 43, 44r-49, 52, 
60, 70 

Brydges, 116 
Bryskett, 186, 188 
Bucer, 29, 65, 75, 76, 82, 98, 226, 
229 

Budden, 135 
Bugenhagen, 21 

Bullinger, 24, 26, 27, 68, 74, 75, 
102,112,114-116,119, 120,126, 
157 

Bunny, 81, 83 
de Burgo, 216 
Burnet, 213, 214, 216 
Burroughes, 70 
Burton, H., 32 
Burton, R., 183, 186 

C., R., 129, 132, 133, 154 
C., R. (gent.), 187 
Calvin, 12, 29, 30, 35, 37, 49, 75 
Cajetanus, 9 

Cambridge Hist. Eng. Lit., 144, 
145, 165, 181, 210 
Canterbury Tales, 142, 164 


Carew, 174 
Carter, 123,136 

Carter's Christian Commonwealth, 
123, 136 

Cartwright, 29, 30, 35, 41, 42, 44, 
78, 79 

Castiglione, 144,179,181 
Catechisme (Becon), 69, 127, 158 
Catechisme of Christian Religion, 
38, 39 

Catherine (queen), 7, 13, 71, 112, 
117,170,207-224 
Catherine de’ Medici, 171 
Caxton, 102, 107, 122 
Censura Liber aria, 116 
Censurae Academiarum, 214r-217, 

218, 219, 220 

Ceremony of marriage, 17-19, 20- 
24, 27, 38-42, 49, 55, 57, 58, 
115, 233, 234, 235, 240 
America, 21 ( see also mar¬ 
riage, civil) 

Brownist, see marriage 
Church of England, 20-24, 
27, 47, 55 

civil, 38, 48, 52, 58 
Geneva, 49, 50, 56 
Holland, 37-39, 43, 49, 53 
Netherlands, 38, 53 
Protestant, 20, 21, 27 
Puritan, 42-44 

Reformed churches, (Eng¬ 
land), 53, 56, 59 
Roman Catholic, 20-24 
Scotland, 49, 50, 51-54, 56 
Certain Letters, 48 
Cervantes, 156 
Changeling, 5, 26 

Chapuys, 209, 211, 212, 215, 217, 

219, 220 


260 


INDEX 


Charles I (king), 31, 32 
Charles V (emperor), 209, 211,215 
217, 219 

Chaucer, 27, 142, 164, 166, 167, 
189, 191 
Cheke, 63 

Chelidonius, 130, 148 
Chettle, 197 

Child Marriages , 5, 14,16 
Children, see domestic relations 
Chillester, 129 

Christ, 12, 25, 108, 109, 118 
Christen state of Matrimonye, 24, 
27, 68, 74, 112, 114-116, 119, 
123, 125, 126, 157 
Christian Oeconomie , 25, 42, 79-80, 
115, 131-132, 133, 234 
Christian man’s Closet , 131 
Christian Plea , 48 
Christine de Pisan, 170 
Chrysostom, St., 149 
Church government 
Brownist, 48 

controversies on, 76-79, 80- 
81, 84-85, 91-92 
courts, 66-67, 76-78 
English Church of Common¬ 
wealth, 34-36 
Geneva, 12, 29, 30, 35 
Guernsey, 35 
Holland, 12 
Jersey, 35 

Presbyterian, 34, 35 
Puritan, 29-30, 41, 76 
Roman Catholic, 29 
Scotland, 12, 34, 35, 51 
Zurich, 29 
Cicero, 140 
Ciprian, St., 113 


Civill and Christian Nobilitie, 181, 
183 

Clapham, 116, 161 
Cleaver, 132 
Cloister and Hearth, 19 
Coke, A., 173 
Coke, E., 65, 86, 99 
Colasteron, 99, 226, 229 
Comendacions of matrymony (Har¬ 
rington), 40, 72-74, 106-108, 
232-233 

Commendation of Matrimony 
(Agrippa), 116 

Committee of Thirty-two, 63, 74 
Comparative Law of Marriage and 
Divorce, 9, 10 

Commyssion unto those whose wyves 
be thayr masters, 165 
Compendius Form of Domestical 
Duties, 130 

Complaynt of all them that be to 
soone maryed, 165 
Compleat Gentleman, 185 
Concilia Britanniae et Hiberniae, 
114 

Confession of faith (Brownists), 
38, 48 

Confessions of Faith (Scots), 51 
Confession de Foy des Eglises Re- 
formees, 39 

Confutation of John Abell, 212 
Consanguinity, see Levitical de¬ 
grees 

Corinthians, 12, 42, 60, 151, 153 
Cortegiano, 129, 144, 179, 180, 
181, 182, 183 
Cotton, 52, 67 
Coudert, 1, 9, 10 
Court of Civill Courtesy, 182 


INDEX 


261 


Court of High Commissions, 30, 
32, 34, 45, 76 
Courtiers Arte, 182 
Coverdale, 24, 29, 112, 114, 119, 
121, 123 

Cranmer, 63, 213, 218, 220 
Cranmer, Life of, 213 

Memorials of, 61, 62, 213, 214, 
218 

Remains of , 213 
Croke, 219 

Cromwell, 36, 49, 54, 57, 58, 59, 
64, 70, 99, 216 
Cynthia, 174 

Curtaine Lecture, 9, 133, 136, 145- 
146, 163, 169 

Dante, 172 
Davis, 228 

De Captivitate Babilonica, 12 
De Causa matrimonii, 210,211, 212 
De Conjunctio episcopum, 21 
De Institutione Foeminae Chris- 
tianae, 111, 116 
De Jure naturali, 89-90 
De Nobilitate Foeminei Sexus, 161 
De non dissolvendo connubio, 218 
De non ducenda Fratria, 212 
De Regno Christi, 29, 82, 98 
Declaration of Ecclesiasticall Dis¬ 
cipline, 30, 35 

Declaration of Ten Command¬ 
ments, 29, 74 

Defense of Reformed Churches, 82, 
84 

Defense of good women, 161 
Defense of the Marriage of Queen 
Katherine, 223 
Defense of women, 161 
Defensio Matrimonii Reginae, 223 


Defensorum matrimonii regis, 210 
Dekin, 130 

Dekker, 164, 167, 169 
Demonstration of Family Duties, 
136 

Description of Heretickes, 43—44, 
52 

Determinations of the Universi¬ 
ties, 216-217 
Deuteronomy, 207, 211 
Dialoghi della Vita Civile, 181, 
186, 188 

Dialogue of maryages, 143 
Diamonde Most precious, 130 
Dignitie of Man, 153 
Dippers dipt, 98, 231 
Directory of Public Worship, 34, 
55, 56, 58, 59 

Directory of Church-government, 
30, 35, 41, 42, 44 

Discourse for Parents Honour and 
Authoritie, 135 

Discourse on Matrimony, 136 
Discourse of Civill Life, 186, 188 
Discourse of Felicitie of Man, 186 
Discourse of Marriage and Wiving, 
136, 140, 178 

Discourse of Married and Single 
Life, 125, 136, 163, 178 
Disobedient child, 27, 192, 194, 201 
Display of dutie, 178, 184 
Display of Duty, 130 
Dissuasive from the Errours of the 
Time, 38, 48, 52, 55, 70 
Divorce. 

a mensa et thoro, 8, 12, 63, 
72, 76, 81, 87, 95, 107, 118 
a vinculo matrimonii, 8, 12, 
65, 67-69, 72, 79, 87 
Brownist, 70 


INDEX 


262 

Divorce continued 
by consent, 87 
by minister, 66, 80 
canon law of, 1, 7, 13, 61, 
63, 84, 95 

causes of, 8-11, 13, 20, 62-63, 
65, 72-74, 75, 79-80, 85, 
86, 87, 93-95 {see also mar¬ 
riage impediments) 

Christ on, 12, 118 
Church of England, 72-73, 
75-76, 84 
civil, 67-69, 88, 99 
courts for, 66, 67 
Cromwell’s act, 99 
early Christian, 2 
German reform of, 11-13, 63, 
65, 68, 71, 72, 74, 75, 85, 98 
Hebrew, 67, 68, 69 
Henry VIII’s, 7, 11, 13, 71, 
72, 114, 117, 207-224 
Independents, 69, 70, 96-97, 
99 

jurisdiction in England on, 
66-70, 99 

legislation in England on, 
61-65, 71, 85, 99 
Milton on, 5, 7,15, 86, 91-100 
parliamentary, 100 
private, 68-70, 96, 97, 99 
Protestant, 12, 61, 65, 67, 
74, 75 

Puritan, 65, 66, 74-76, 79-88, 
95-96 

reforms of 1857, 100 
Reformed churches, 86 
Roman, 67 

Roman Catholic, 7, 8, 62, 64, 
65, 72, 85, 86 
St. Paul on, 12 


Divorce and Divorce Legislation , 
11, 13 

Divorce for Adulterie, 81, 83 
Divorce, History of, 64 
Divorce , History of D. and Remar¬ 
riage, 117, 119 
Divorcement, 81 

Doctoris Pyi impium dogma, 83 
Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, 
70, 90, 91-98, 99, 153, 225-231 
Doctrine of Church of England, 
117, 118, 119 
Dobell, 190 
Doll’s House, 206 
Domestical Duties, 26, 86, 123, 
136, 137-138, 234-237 
Domestic relations 

books of, 101-146, 234-242 
drama, 192-206 
children 

conduct of, 103, 106 
duties, 127, 128, 131, 234, 
236, 241 

instruction, 101, 115, 118, 
131 

marriage, 6, 14, 15, 17, 88, 
115, 124, 125, 131, 133, 
156, 236 

upbringing, 102, 103, 107, 
109, 110, 113, 115, 116, 
131 

husband’s duties, 101, 102, 
104,112,113,115,116, 127, 
128,132,133,153, 234, 235, 
236, 237, 240, 241 
parents’ duties, 102, 103, 106, 
115,127,128, 234, 236, 240, 
servants 

management of, 102, 103, 
115, 234, 237 


INDEX 


263 


Domestic relations continued 
servants, duties of, 106, 127, 
129, 236, 237, 241 
wife’s duties, 101, 102, 103, 
104,106, 112,113,115, 116, 
127,128, 132, 135,138,154, 
157, 158, 234, 235, 240, 242 
Donne, 55, 88, 122, 133, 160, 171, 
178, 189 

Dort, Synod of, 38, 39, 56 
Douglas, 164 
Dove, 81, 83 

Draft of 'primitive Church system, 
29 

Drayton, 202 
Ducci, 182 
Duchess of Malfi, 3 
Dunbar, 158, 164, 165 
Duety of maried folkes, 130 
Duties of Husband and Wife, 133 
Dyall for dainty darlings, 189-190 
Dyke, 136 

E., T., 62, 161, 162 
Early Books in Lambeth Library, 
222 

Ecclesiastes, 25 
Ecclesiasticae Disciplinae, 30 
Ecclesiastical Law of England, 1 
Ecclesiastical Memorials, 215, 216 
Ecclesiastical Polity, 46, 79 
Edward IV, 203, 206 
Edward VI, 21, 22, 28, 34, 49, 50, 
56, 63, 120, 122 
Edwards, 43, 48, 52, 162 
Einstein, 182 
Eheschliessung, 59 
Elizabeth, 28, 29, 32, 76, 78, 120, 
143, 147, 162, 171-174 
Elizabethan Drama, 192 


Elyot, 161, 182, 217 
England as seen by Foreigners, 175 
England's Helicon, 184 
English Gentleman, 186, 187 
English Gentlewoman, 161,162-163 
187 

English House, 170 
English Law, History of, 8 
Englishmen for my Money, 6, 202 
English Puritanisme, 31-32, 81 
English Traveller, 4, 204 
Ephesians, 151, 181 
Epistola ad Howsonun, 82 
Epystle in prayse of Matrymony, 
111 

Erasmus, 9, 75, 93, 111, 112, 130, 
144, 163 

Erasmus, Life of, 208 

Erskine, 188 

Esmein, 1 

Essex (Lady), 64 

Ester hath hang'd Haman, 168 

Esther, 25 

Example of Virtue, 181 
Excellency of good women, 161 
Exemplary Lives of Women, 161, 
162, 173, 176 
Exposition of Hosea , 70 

Faerie Queene, 181, 187-189, 190 
Fagius, 65 

Fair Maid of West, 197 
Familiar Studies, 160, 172, 174 
Family, 11 
Faret, 182 
Faults, Faults, 126 
Featley, D., 98, 231 
Featley, revived, 231 
Featley, J., 231 
Fenner, 130, 139 


264 


INDEX 


Feme, 183 
Field, 169 
Fiore, 183 

First Blast of the Trumpet, 172 
First Epistle General, 151 
Fisher, 208, 210-211, 212-213, 
215, 217, 218, 220, 221, 222, 224 
Fisher, Life of, 210, 223 
Fit John, 130 
Fleay, 190 
Fletcher, 195 
Florence, Council of, 2 
Flower of Friendship, 143 
Flower of Vertue, 183 
Form of Discipline (Cartwright), 
30 

Forme of Prayers, 50 
Forme for Families, 133, 134, 136, 
137-138, 237-242 
Fox, J., 114,173 
Foxe, E., 209, 213, 216, 222 
French Academie, 181, 184 
Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, 
198 

Friedberg, 59 
Friendship, 144 
Fuller, 28, 72 
Furnivall, 5, 14, 16 

Gage, 150 
Gardiner, 213 
Genesis, 5, 42, 149, 150 
Genesis of New England Churches, 
38,53,66 
Gentilis, 82 
Gentiluomo, 181 
Gentle Lash, 231 
Getaker, 88 
Gibbon, 130, 133 
Gibson, 161 


Giraldi, 181, 186, 188 
Glasse for disobedient sounes, 189- 
190 

Glasse of God's Providence, 230 
Glasse of Truthe, 210, 217, 219, 
220, 224 
Gloriana, 174 

Godly Form of Hovsehold Gouerne- 
ment, 132, 133, 154 
Godolphin, 9, 10, 84, 87 
Godwin, 226 

Golden Book of Matrimony, 114 
Golden Chain, 131 
Golden Grove, 134, 185 
Good Wife, 145 

Goodly advise touching manage, 154 
Goodrich, 220 
Gosson, 167 
Gosynhyll, 161, 165 
Gouge, 25, 26, 86, 123, 136, 137, 
138, 234 

de Gournay, 174 
Gouvernail of Princes, 182 
Gouvernour, 182 
Gower, 191 
Greene, 196, 198 
Greenwood, 45, 46, 47, 50, 53 
Grey, 173 

Griffith, 133, 136, 137, 138, 237 

Grimstone, 182 

Grosart, 190 

Grotius, 230 

Guide to Honovr, 187 

Guls Hornbook, 169 

H., T., 145 
Haddon, 63 
Haec-Vir, 168-169 
Hall, 88, 134 

Hampton Court Conference, 31 


INDEX 


265 


Hanbury, 43, 45, 46, 48, 70 
Hannay, 145 
Happy Husband, 145 
Happy Mind, 187 
Harborwe for trewe Subjectes, 172 
Harding, 44 

Harpsfield, 122, 211, 212, 213,215 
218, 220, 222, 223-224 
Harrington, 10, 39,40,72,106,114 
115, 120, 232 
Hawes, 181 
Hawkins, 219 
Helvetius, 123 
Hemmingius, 9 
Henry 111, 170 
Henry IV, 170 

Henry VIII, 7, 11, 13, 28, 61, 63, 
65, 71, 72, 114, 117, 170, 207- 
224 

Henry VIII, 196, 197 
Heresiography, 43, 44, 52 
Herman V, 130 
Hervet, 112 
Heylyn, 30, 44 

Heywood, J., 143, 145, 167, 194 
Heywood, T., 4, 126, 140, 145, 
161,162,172,173, 175, 176,177, 
178, 197, 200, 203, 204, 206 
Hic-Mvlier, 168-169 
Hill, 150, 176 

Historical Collections, 34, 36 
Historical Memorials, 43, 45, 46, 
48, 70 

History concerninge Women, 126, 
140, 161-162, 177-178, 203 
History of Divorce, 64 
History of Divorce and Remarriage , 
117, 119 

History of English Law, 8 
History of Matrimonial Institu¬ 


tions , 1,6,13,18, 51, 54, 58, 59, 

68, 122 

History of New England, 53 
History of Plymouth Plantation, 38, 
53 

History of Presbyterians, 30, 44 
History of Puritans, 30, 32, 33, 81, 
92, 118, 147 

History of Reformation, 213, 214, 
216 

History of Reformation in Scot¬ 
land, 51, 70 
Hoceleve, 182 
Holyman, 223 

Homily against Whoredom, 69 
Honest Man, 182 
Honest Whore, 196 
Honor, book of, 180-191 
Honor Military and Ciuill, 185 
Hooker, 46, 79 
Hooper, 29, 68, 74, 76 
Houghton, 197, 202 
House-holder, 135 
Housekeeping, 102, 108, 113, 115, 
116, 127, 234, 235, 237, 238 
Houshold, Treatise of, 112,113-114 
Housholders Philosophic, 130, 144 
How a Man May Choose, 125, 193, 
196, 198, 200 
Howard, F., 64 

Howard, G. E., 1, 6,13,18, 51, 54, 
58, 59, 68, 122 
Howell, 231 
Howson, 82 
Humble Petition, 31 
Humphrey, 182 

Hundreth poyntes of evell huswrif - 
rye, 165 

Husband, see domestic relations 
Hyrde, 112, 154 


266 


INDEX 


Hystorie of Christian Princes, 130, 
148 

Ibsen, 206 

Image of Idlenesse, 167 
Impediments, see marriage 
Independents, 26, 27, 44-49, 51- 
54, 55, 58, 59, 76-77 
Independents, Memorials of, 43, 45, 
46, 48, 70 
Inderwick, 69 

Institutes of Laws of England , 65 
Institution of a Christian Man, 117, 
118-119 

Institutions Morale, 188 
Institutiones (Calvin), 12 
Institutions of a Gentleman , 182 
Instruction of a Christian Woman, 
112, 154, 156-157, 162,163, 170 
Interregnum, 69 
Invicta Veritas, 212 
Italian Renaissance in England, 
182 

James I, 31, 123 
James IV, 196 
Jane (Westmorland), 173 
Jeaffreson, 3, 6, 22, 23, 59, 171 
Jenkyns, 213 

Jerome, St., 113, 122, 123, 133 

Johan Johan, 194 

John, St., 25 

Johnson, F., 48 

Jones, 188 

Jonson, 169 

Jovinian, 122 

Judgment of Bucer, 98, 229 
Jusserand, 188 

Juventus Pater Uxor, 192, 194, 
201 


K., T., 144 
Keichel, 175 
King’s Book, 117 
Kingsmill, 154 
Kitchin, 64 
Knight, 208 

Knox, 51, 69, 70, 160, 171, 172 
Kotser Codiczs, 208, 209, 212-213, 
221-222 
Kyd, 130, 144 

Labyrinth of Mans Life, 191 
Ladies Looking Glasse, 161-162 
Larke, 183 

Late Assembly of Divines Confes¬ 
sion of Faith, 88 
Late Lancashire Witches, 204 
Laud, 32, 33, 41, 84 
Lawes Resolvtions of Womens 
Rights, 63, 161, 162 
Lechford, 52 

Legend of Good Women, 164 
LeGrand, 102, 114, 122 
Leigh, D., 173 
Leigh, N., 130 
Letter from a Gentleman, 59 
Letters and State Papers, 208-220 
Levitical degrees, see marriage 
Leviticus, 207, 211 
Ley, 84 

Libellus de Coniunctio, 9 
Life and maners of true Christians, 
26, 30, 44, 45, 76-78 
Life of Cranmer, 213 
Life of Erasmus, 208 
Life of Milton (Masson), 231 
Life of Milton (Philips), 226 
Life of Shakespeare, 190 
Lindsay, 167 
Ling, 184 


INDEX 


267 


Little, 216 

Little Nonsuch, 98 

Lives of E. and J. Philips, 226 

Lives of Puritans, 43, 46, 67 

Lollards, 28 

Looking-Glasse for Good Women, 
151, 153 

Looking Glasse for maried Folkes, 
135, 141 

London Prodigal, 196, 198, 199, 
201 

Lowth, 131 

Luther, 11, 12, 18, 37, 41, 44, 49, 
63, 67, 68, 75 
Lyly, 174 

Macon, Council of, 150 
Machiavelli, 179 
Maid, see women 
Maitland, F. W., 1, 8 
Maitland, G. R., 222 
Man-Woman, 168-169 
Mancinus, 181 
Mantua, 224 

Margaret of Navarre, 173 
Manage and Wiuing, 133, 163-164 
Manage en droit canonique, 1 
Markham, 185 
Marprelate Tracts, 31, 79 
Marriage 

annulment of, see divorce 
banns, 6, 20, 41, 50 
Brownist, 38, 43, 44-49, 52, 
60 

canon law of, 1 
ceremony, see ceremony of 
marriage 

child, 6, 14-15, 17, 88, 115, 
124, 131, 133, 135, 138, 
156, 236 


Church of England, 2, 20-24, 
27, 47, 55 

civil, 37-38, 40-41, 43, 44, 
45, 49-54, 55, 57-60 
clandestine, 3-4, 6, 16-17, 40, 
110 

clergy, 80, 88, 120, 122 
consent in, 39, 40, 58, 232, 

234, 239 

contract of, 1, 3, 4, 17, 19, 37, 
38, 42, 76, 78, 99, 101, 107, 
115, 118, 137, 138, 232, 

235, 239 

Cromwell's act, 36, 49, 54, 57, 
58-59, 70, 99 

definition of, 45, 104, 115, 
126-127, 239 
dignity of, 104, 108, 118 
early Christian, 2,37 
English ecclesiastical law of, 1 
feast, 24-27, 115 
Geneva, 49, 50, 56 
Holland, 37-39,43, 44,49, 51, 
53, 58 

impediments to, 8-11, 13, 20, 
62-63, 72-74, 79, 95, 102, 
107, 112, 123, 233 
Independents, 44-49, 51-54, 
55, 58, 59 
laws of, 1-13 
legal age for, 5 

Levitical degrees, 10, 11, 62, 
73, 74, 85, 86, 87, 88, 115, 
118, 137, 138, 207, 211, 239 
magistrates for, 52-54, 55, 
58-60, 78, 81 
mass at, 21, 23 
Massachusetts, 54 
Milton on, 5, 60, 86, 89, 
91-99,121-122,127 


268 


INDEX 


Marriage continued 

Netherlands, 38, 53 
New England, 44, 51-54, 58 
ordinances, 12-13, 63 
Presbyterian, 50-51 
practice and customs of, 13- 
27 

private, 4, 6,16,37-40, 50, 51, 
55, 57, 59, 110 

Puritan, 37-44, 88, 94-96, 
121-123, 170 

purposes of, 45, 94, 104, 122, 
128, 232, 235, 239 
Reformed churches (England) 
53, 54-60, 86 
registry of, 49, 58, 60 
regular, 17, 19-24 
ring, 17, 20, 23, 29, 47 
Roman, 1, 2 

Roman Catholic, 2-13, 120- 
123, 149 

sacrament of, 2,12, 39, 60, 67, 
120, 232 

Scotland, 49, 50-51, 54 
sermon, 23, 24, 53 
solemnization, see ceremony 
of marriage 

state of, 101, 102, 103, 107, 
113, 115, 116, 124, 125, 
128, 183-185 
times for, 6, 233 
West Friesland, 37 
witnesses of, 2, 17, 20, 26, 38, 
40, 41, 45, 47, 50, 58, 233 
Marriage and Divorce Laws in 
Europe , 1 , 9, 10 

Married and Single Life (anon.), 
125, 136, 163, 178 
Married and Single Life (Bacon), 
144, 189 


Marston, 169, 205 
Martyr, 63, 75 

Mary (England), 120, 171, 172 
Mary (Scotland), 64 
Mary of Guise, 171 
Masson, 226, 230, 231 
Matrimonial Institutions, History 
of, 1, 6, 13, 18, 51, 54, 58, 59, 
68, 122 

Matrimoniall Honovr , 48-49, 90- 
91, 136, 138-139, 152 
Matrimonii Christiani Institution 
9-10, 111, 112 
Matrimonii Enconium, 111 
Matrimonium, 114 
Matthew , 12, 118 
May, 217 
Melancthon, 75 

Memorials of Cranmer, 61, 62, 213, 
214, 218 

Merchant of Venice, 4, 202 
Merchant’s Tale, 27 
Merry Devil of Edmonton, 202 
Middleton, 169, 196, 202 
Milton, 5, 7, 11, 15, 54, 60, 62, 63, 
65, 70, 74, 79, 86, 89, 90, 
91-100, 111, 121-122 127, 
129, 148, 153, 160, 225-231 
quoted, 5, 7, 15, 60, 63, 86, 
89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 
98,121-122,127,230 
Colasteron , 99, 226, 229 
Doctrine and Discipline of 
Divorce, 70, 90, 91-98, 66, 
153, 225-231 

Judgment of Bucer, 98, 226, 
229 

Paradise Lost, 160, 177, 228, 
229 

Second Defense , 230 


INDEX 


269 


Milton continued 

Tetrachordon , 98, 226, 229 
Treatise to Remove Hirelings, 
60 

Milton, Life of (Masson) 231 
Milton, Life of (Philips), 226 
Milton, Mary, 226, 227, 230 
Mirrour of Good Manners , 181 
Miseries of Enforced Marriage , 5, 
198, 199, 201 
van Miteren, 175 
Modern Language Review , 174 
Modern Philology, 188 
Modest Means to Marry , 130 
Monsieur Thomas, 195 
More, A., 160 
More, E., 161 
More, T., 112, 170, 223 
Most Worthy Women of World, 161, 
162, 173, 176 
Mother's Blessing, 173 
Mouzell for Melastomus, 168 
Much Ado about Nothing, 196 
Muld Sacke, 168-169 
Munda, 168 
Musculus, 75 
Muzio, 181 

Myrrour for vertuous maydes, 189, 
190 

N., A., 153 

Necessary Doctrine for any Chris - 
. tian Man, 117, 118 
Neal, 30, 31, 32, 33, 81, 92, 118, 
147 

Nenna, 179, 181, 188 
Nennio, 179, 181, 183, 188 
Neo-Platonists, 188 
New England, History of, 53 
Newes from New England, 52 


Niccholes, 136, 140, 178 
Nice Wanton, 192 
Nicolas, 216 

Nine Bookes of Women, 126, 140, 
161-162,177-178,203 
Nixon, 153 

Nobility, books of, 180-191 
Nobles, 482 

Nobylytie off Wymen, 161 
Non esse, etc. (Vives’ book on 
Henry’s divorce), 215, 219, 220- 
221 

Norden, 191 

Oeconomia Christiana, 114 
Of Reformation, 77 
Of Weddid Men and Wifis, 101, 
102 

Office and duetie of an Husband, 
116, 170 

Oratio de laudibus tuum linguarum, 
222 

Order for Studying the Scriptures, 
77 

Order of Household, 130, 139 
Order of Household Instruction, 133 
Order of Matrimony, 130 
Ordinance of matrimony, 12-13, 
63 

Ortiz, 215, 217 
Osorio da Fonseca, 181, 183 
Othello, 196, 197, 204 
Ovid, 140 

Pace, 208, 209 
Page, 136 

Paget, E., 43-44, 48, 52, 55 
Paget, J., 43, 48, 70 
Palmer, 230 


270 


INDEX 


Panedonius, 145 
Paradise Lost, 160,177,228, 229 
Parents, see domestic relations 
Parents and Children , 144 
Parker, 165 

Passetyme of Pleasure , 181 
Patient Grissel, 197, 198 
Pattison, 226 

Paul, St., 8, 12, 42, 102, 104, 122, 
150, 158, 166, 172, 181, 189, 
194 

Paynell, 116 
Peacham, 185 
Pembroke, 64 

Perkins, 25, 42, 74, 75, 79, 80, 93, 
94, 115, 131, 133, 137, 138, 
234 

Peter, St., 150, 151 
Petrarch, 172 
Philip, 25 

Philips, 92, 225-230 
Philips, Lives of E. and J., 226 
Phillimore, 1, 9, 10 
Philotus, 145 
Piccolomini, 188 
Pickering, 79, 131 
Piers Plowman, 142, 182 
Pitts, 212 
Plaine-dealing, 52 
Plato, 113, 140, 159, 173, 181, 
188 

Pleasant Quippes for Gentlewomen, 
167 

Pocock, 212, 213, 214, 217, 219, 
223 

Pole, G., 113 

Pole, R., 207, 218-219, 222-223 
Politeuphuia, 184 
Pollock, 8 
Pollard, 216 


Porter, 196 

Prayer Book, 20, 34, 49, 50, 56 
Prayse of all women, 161, 165 
Preparative to Manage, 75, 132, 
133 

Presbyterians, 34, 50, 51 
Presbyterians, History of, 30, 44 
Pretended Divorce (Henry VIII), 
122, 212, 213, 215, 218, 220, 
222, 223-224 

Principe, 129, 130, 179, 182 
Primaudaye, 181, 184 
Principles of the Christian Religion, 
127 

Proude Wyves Paternoster, 165 
Pro Ecclesiasticae Unitatis, 219, 
222, 223 

Proverbs, 110, 134 
Pryde and abuse of women, 163 
Prynne, 32, 84, 230 
Publications of Mod. Lang. Asso., 
188 

Puritans, 25, 27, 28, 29-44, 65, 66, 
76, 79, 88, 94-96, 121, 122,123, 
170, 232, 235, 239 
Puritans, History of, 30, 32, 33,81, 
92, 118, 147 
Pye, 79, 82, 83 

Queries, 230 

Quinzejoyes des Manage, 164 

RadclifF, 196 
Rainolds, 82, 83 
Raleigh, 176, 181, 188 
Rapture, 174 
Rastell, 107 
Reade, 19 
Redman, 107 


INDEX 


271 


Reformatio Legum, 63,69, 74 
Reformation, 1, 2, 6, 11-13, 27, 
28-36 

Reformation, Of, 77 
Reformation, History of, 212, 214, 
216 

Reformation, Records of, 213, 219 
Reformation in Scotland, History of, 
51, 70 

Reginaldi Poli ad Henricu octavum, 
222-223 

Remains of Cranmer, 213 
Remains of Raleigh, 176 
Renaissance, 140, 159, 170 
Renton, 9, 10 

Repertorium Canonicum, 9, 10, 87 
Reply to the Answer, 78 
Rich, 126, 161-162 
Ridley, N., 29 
Ridley, T., 1, 87, 94 
Roaring Girl, 5, 202 
Robinson, 43, 51, 52, 53 
Robson, 182 

Rogers, D., 48, 49, 55, 89-91, 136, 
138-139, 152 
Rogers, J., 29 
Rogers, T., 183 

Roman Canon Law in England, 1 

Romances, 156-157 

Romeo and Juliet, 201 

Roome for a Gentleman, 126 

Rous, 187 

Rushworth, 34, 36 

Rutland, 64 

Rye, 175 

S., S., 130 
S., W., 190 
Sacarius, 75 

Saint Paul’s Threefold Cord , 136 


Salomons Divine Arts, 134 
Saltmarsh, 84 
Schelling, 192 
Schole-howse of women, 165 
Schoole of Beastes, 130, 140 
Scobell, 34, 36, 56, 58, 99 
Second Book of Discipline, 51 
Second Defense, 230 
Segar, 185 
Selden, 89 
Seneca, 140 

Sermon on Reformation, 28 
Servants, see domestic relations 
Shakespeare, 4, 19, 190, 195, 196, 
197, 201, 206 
Shakespeare, Life of, 190 
Ship of Fools, 143 
Shoemakers’ Holiday, 196, 202 
Shrewde and Curste Wyfe, 165 
Sidney, P., 64, 187, 191 
Sidney, M., 64, 173 
Silent Woman, 167 
Skot, 107 

Smectymuun controversy, 84 
Smith, H., 75, 132, 133 
Smith, M., 1 
Snawsel, 135, 141 
Socrates, 113 

Solemnization, see ceremony of 
marriage 

Soppe for Cerberus, 168 
Sowernam, 168 
Sparrow, 170 
Speght, 168 
Speirs, Synod of, 118 
Spenser, 174,181,187-189,191 
Spousals, 3-5, 7, 41, 44, 49, 73, 74, 
234 

de futuro, 3, 4, 12, 17, 18, 20, 
21, 45, 49 


272 


INDEX 


Spousals continued, 

de praesenti, 3-4, 12, 16, 17, 
18, 19, 20, 21, 37, 38, 40, 
41, 42, 45, 50, 57, 58 
forms of, 17, 18-20, 21 
instrument of, 19, 41 
Spousals, Treatise of, 3, 17, 18, 19, 
21, 134 
Stafford, 187 
Star Chamber, 33, 64, 85 
Stationers' Register, 136, 225, 229 
Statutes of the Realm, 61, 62 
Stevenson, 160, 172, 173 
Stockwood, 131 
Stolzel, 67 
Stokesley, 216, 221 
Strype, 61, 62, 64, 213, 214, 215, 
216, 218 
Stubbes, 126 
Studley, 79 
Sutro Tracts, 59 
Swetnam, 168 

Swetnam arraigned by women, 168 
Swinburne, 3, 17, 18, 19, 21, 134 
Syde Taillis, 167 
Sylvester, 108, 110 
Syntagma de Hebraeorum codicum 
221-222, 224 

T., R., 134, 144 
Taming of a Shrew, 194 
Taming of the Shrew, 4, 167, 195, 
205 

Tanner, 210,211,212, 218, 223 
Tasso, H., 133, 144, 163-164 
Tasso, T., 130, 133, 144, 146, 
163 

Taverner, 111 
Teltruth, 168 
Tertullian, 122 


Testimony to the Truth of Jesus 
Christ, 98 

Tetrachordon, 98, 226, 229 
Theatrum Mundi, 153 
Third Petition to King James, 48 
Thirty-nine Articles, 12, 40, 118 
Thomason, 92, 225, 226, 228, 229 
Thomason Tracts, 54, 59 
Thwing, 11 
Tilney, 143 

Timothy, 150, 151, 172 
Tindale, 114, 121 
To a Strumpet, 174 
Todd, 213 
Toland, 227 
Tom Tyler, 194 
Topsell, 135 
Torshell, 161 
TouteviUe, 136 
Towneley Mysteries, 192 
Tractatus contra reprehensiones T. 
Pyi, 82 

Tractio de repudiis et divortiis, 82 
Travers, 29, 30 

Treatise in defense of Henry 8, 223 
Treatise of an Houshold, 112, 113— 
114 

Treatise of Spousals, 3, 17, 18, 19, 
21, 134 

Treatise to Remove Hirelings, 60 
Trent, Council of, 2, 122 
Tua Maryit wemen, 158, 164, 165 
Tunstall, 223 
Twelfth Night, 4, 19 
Twelve mery gestes of one called 
Edyth, 164 

Two Angry Women of Abington, 
196, 202 

Uncasing of Heresie, 123 


INDEX 


273 


Universal Cyclopedia, 1 
Utopia, 112 

Uxbridge, Proposals of, 34 
Uxore dismissa propter Fornica- 
tionem, 82 

Vaughan, 134, 185 
Viewe of Civile and Ecclesiasticall 
Law, 1, 87 
Viret, 130, 140 

Vives, 111, 112-113,116-117,144, 
154, 156,158,162, 163,170, 215, 
219, 220-221, 222 

W., R., 130 

Wakefield, 208-209, 212-213,221- 
222, 224 

Walloon churches, Synod of, 39 
Warning for Fair Women, 193,199, 
200 

Watt, 82, 130, 133, 136 
Webster, 197 
Wedlocke, 166, 167 
Werkefor housholders, 108-111 
Whately, 68, 69, 74, 86, 88, 136, 
137 

White, 53 

White Devil, 197 

Whitford, 108, 109, 110, 111 

Whitgift, 30, 32, 41, 76, 78, 79 

Wichcraft, 109 

Wiclif, 28, 101, 102, 122 

Widow, see woman 

Wife, 177 

Wife, see woman 

Wife of Bath, 22, 164, 166, 169 

Wife of Bath’s Tale, 143, 189 

Wilkins, D., 114 

Wilkins, G., 198 

Wilkins, H. J., 117, 119 


WiUobie his Avisa, 190 
Willoby, 190, 191 
Wiltshire, 218 
Winslow, 53, 54, 55 
Winter’s Tale, 196 
Winthrop, 53 
Wits Commonwealth, 184 
Wits Theater, 184 
Wohing of ure Laverde, 142 
Woman, 

abuse of, 152-153, 163-164 
apparel, 106, 151, 167 
bride, 22 

Church’s attitude toward, 
121-122, 149-150 
commendation of, 160-163 
court, 159, 173 
domestic books on, 152-158 
drama, 193-198 
instruction of, 112, 113, 154, 
237 

maidens, 103, 113, 116, 127, 
155-156 

rights, 74, 80, 96, 162 
rise of, 170-173 
widows, 103, 127, 158 
wife’s duties, see domestic re¬ 
lations 

Woman Killed with Kindness, 193, 
203-204, 206 
Womanish-Man, 168-169 
Womans Glorie, 161, 162 
Womans Woorth, 161 
Woman's Prize, 195, 202 
Women, Church and State, 150 
Women in English Life, 150, 176 
Women, History concerninge, 126, 
140, 161-162, 177-178,203 
Wonder of Women, 26, 197, 205 
Wood, 116, 211, 212, 223, 227 


274 


INDEX 


Woolsey, 11, 13 Wright, 178, 184 

Worde, 221, 222 

Work worth Reading , 133 Yorkshire Tragedy, 199 

Worming of a mad Dogge, 168 
Worthy Women of the World, 161- Zurich, 29 
162, 173, 176 Zwingli, 29 


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 

Columbia University in the City of New York 



The Press was incorporated June 8 , 1893, to promote the publi¬ 
cation of the results of original research. It is a private corporation, 
related directly to Columbia University by the provisions that its 
Trustees shall be officers of the University and that the President of 
Columbia University shall be President of the Press. 


The publications of the Columbia University Press include 
works on Biography, History, Economics, Education, Philosophy, 
Linguistics, and Literature, and the following series: 

Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology. 

Columbia University Biological Series. 

Columbia University Studies in Cancer and Allied Subjects. 
Columbia University Studies in Classical Philology. 

Columbia University Studies in Comparative Literature. 
Columbia University Studies in English. 

Columbia University Geological Series. 

Columbia University Germanic Studies. 

Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series. 

Columbia University Contributions to Oriental History and 
Philology. 

Columbia University Oriental Studies. 

Columbia University Studies in Romance Philology and Liter¬ 
ature. 

Records of Civilization: Sources and Studies. 

Adams Lectures. Carpentier Lectures. 

Julius Beer Lectures. Hewitt Lectures. 

Blumenthal Lectures. Jesup Lectures. 

Catalogues will be sent free on application. 

Lemcke & Buechner, Agents 

30-32 West 27 th St., NEW YORK 











COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 


STUDIES IN ENGLISH 

Joseph Glanvill. By Ferris Greenslet, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, dd 
xi + 235. Price, $1.50 net. 

The Elizabethan Lyric. By John Erskine, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo dd. 
xvi + 344. Price, $1.50 net. 

Classical Echoes in Tennyson. By Wilfred P. Mustard Ph D 
Cloth, 12mo. pp. xvi + 164. Price, $1.25 net. 

Sir Walter Scott as a Critic of Literature. By Margaret B at. t. Ph.D 
Paper, 8vo, pp. x + 188. Price, $1.00 net. 

The Early American Novel. By Lillie Deming Loshe, Ph.D. Paper, 
8 vo, pp. vii + 131. Price, $1.00 net. 

Studies in New England Transcendentalism. By Harold C. God¬ 
dard, Ph.D. Paper, 8vo, pp. x + 217. Price, $1.00 net. 

A Study of Shelley’s Drama “ The Cenci.” By Ernest Sutherland 
Bates, Ph.D. Paper, 8vo, pp. ix + 103. Price, $1.00 net. 

Verse Satire in England before the Renaissance. By Samuel Marion 
Tucker, Ph.D. Paper, 8vo, pp. xi + 245. Price, $1.00 net. 

The Accusative with Infinitive and Some Kindred Constructions in 
English. By Jacob Zeitlin, Ph.D. Paper, 8vo, pp. xi + 177. 
Price, $1.00 net. * ^ 

Government Regulation of the Elizabethan Drama. By Virginia 
Crocheron Gildersleeve, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. vii 4- 259 
Price, $1.25 net. 

The Stage History of Shakespeare’s King Richard the Third. By 
Alice I. Perry Wood, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi 4- 186. Price, 
$1.25 net. 

The Shaksperian Stage. By Victor E. Albright, Ph.D. Cloth, 
8vo, pp. xii 4- 194. Illustrated. Price, $1.50 net. 

Thomas Carlyle as a Critic of Literature. By Frederic W. Roe, 
Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi 4- 152. Price, $1.25 net. 

Leigh Hunt’s Relations with Byron, Shelley, and Keats. By Bar¬ 
nette Miller, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. vii + 169. Price, $1.25 net. 

The Authorship of Timon of Athens. By Ernest Hunter Wright, 
Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. ix + 104. Price, $1.25 net. 

English Tragicomedy, Its Origin and History. By Frank H. Ristine, 
Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xv + 247. Price, $1.50 net. 

John Dennis. His Life and Criticism. By Harry G. Paul, Ph.D. 
Cloth, 8vo, pp. viii 4- 229. Portrait. Price, $1.25 net. 

The Rise of the Novel of Manners. By Charlotte E. Morgan 
Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. ix + 271. Price, $1.50 net. 

The Political Prophecy in England. By Rupert Taylor, Ph.D. 
Cloth, 8vo, pp. xx 4- 165. Price, $1.25 net. 


LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents 
30-32 West 27th Street 


New York 






COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 


The Middle English Penitential Lyric. By Frank Allen Patterson, 
Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. ix + 203. Price, $1.50 net. 

The Soliloquies of Shakespeare. By Morris LeRoy Arnold, Ph.D. 
Cloth, 8vo, pp. x 4- 177. Price, $1.25 net. 

The Exemplum in the Early Religious and Didactic Literature of Eng¬ 
land. By Joseph Albert Mosher, Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. 
xi 4 150. Price, $1.25 net. 

New Poems by James I. of England. Edited by Allan F. Westcott, 
Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xci 4- 121. Price, $1.50 net. 

Thomas Dekker. A Study. By Mary Leland Hunt, Ph.D. Cloth, 
8 vo, pp. xiii 4- 212. Price, $1.25 net. 

Mathew Carey. Editor, Author and Publisher. By Earl L. Bradsher, 
Ph.D. Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi + 144. Price, $1.25 net. 

(This series is continued under the title “ Studies in English and 
Comparative Literature ”) 


STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE LITERATURE 

Romances of Roguery. By Frank Wadleigh Chandler, Ph.D. Part I. 
The Picaresque Novel in Spain. Cloth, 12mo, pp. ix 4- 483. Price, 
$2.00 net. 

A History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance. By Joel Elias 
Spingarn, Ph.D. Second edition, revised and augmented. Cloth, 
12mo, pp. xi 4- 350. Price, $1.50 net. 

The Italian Renaissance in England. Studies. By Lewis Einstein, 
Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. xvii+ 420. Illustrated. Price, $1.50 net. 
Platonism in English Poetry of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Cen¬ 
turies. By John Smith Harrison, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. 
xi 4- 235. Price, $2.00 net. 

Irish Life in Irish Fiction. By Horatio Sheafe Krans, Ph.D. 

Cloth, 12mo, pp. vii 4- 338. Price, $1.50 net. 

The English Heroic Play. By Lewis Nathaniel Chase, Ph.D. 

Cloth, 12mo, pp. xii 4- 250. Price, $2.00 net. 

The Oriental Tale in England in the Eighteenth Century. By 
Martha Pike Conant, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. xxvi+312. 
Price, $2.00 net. 

The French Influence in English Literature. By Alfred Horatio 
Upham, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. ix + 560. Price, $2.00 net. 

The Influence of Moliere on Restoration Comedy. By Dudley H. 

Miles, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. xi + 272. Price, $1.50 net. 

The Greek Romances in Elizabethan Prose Fiction. By Samuel 
Lee Wolff, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo, pp. ix + 529. Price, $2.00 net. 


LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents 
30-32 West 27th Street New York 








COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 


Idylls of Fishermen. By Henry Marion Hall, Ph.D. Cloth, 12mo 
pp. xiii + 220. Price, $1.50 net. 


ENGLISH AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE 

Uniformly bound, 12mo, cloth. 

Lord Byron as a Satirist in Verse. By Claude M. Fuess, Ph.D. 
Pp. xi + 228. Price, $1.25 net. 

Spenser’s “Shepherd’s Calender” in Relation to Contemporary 
Affairs. By James Jackson Higginson, Ph.D. Pp. xiii + 364. 
Price, $1.50 net. 

The Commedia dell’Arte. A Study in Italian Popular Comedy. By 
Winifred Smith, Ph.D. Pp.xv+290. Illustrated. Price, $2.00 net. 
Literary Influences in Colonial Newspapers, 1704 - 1750 . By Elizabeth 
Christine Cook, Ph.D. Pp. xi + 279. Price, $1.50 net. 

Learned Societies and English Literary Scholarship in Great Britain 
and the United States. By Harrison R. Steeves, Ph.D. Pp. 
xiv + 245. Price, $1.50 net. 

Aaron Hill. Poet, Dramatist, Projector. By Dorothy Brewster 
Ph.D. Pp. xiii + 300. Portrait. Price, $1.50 net. 

Chaucer and the Roman de la Rose. By Dean Spruill Fansler 
Ph.D. Pp. xi + 269. Price, $1.50 net. 

Gnomic Poetry in Anglo-Saxon. By Blanche Colton Williams, 
Ph.D. Pp. xiii+ 171. Frontispiece. Price, $1.50 net. 

The Relations of Shirley’s Plays to the Elizabethan Drama. By 
Robert S. Forsythe, Ph.D. Pp. xiv + 483. Price, $2.00 net. 
The Ballade. By Helen Louise Cohen, Ph.D. Pp. xix + 397. 
Price, $1.75 net. 

The Life and Romances of Mrs. Eliza Haywood. By George F. 

Whicher, Ph.D. Pp. xi + 210. Price, $1.50 net. 

Disguise Plots in Elizabethan Drama. By Victor O. Freeburg, 
Ph.D. Pp. xi + 241. Price, $1.50 net. 

Robert Greene. By John Clark Jordan, Ph.D. Pp. xi + 231. Price, 
$1.50 net. 

Froissart and the English Chronicle Play. By Robert M. Smith. 

Ph.D. Pp. xiii+ 165. Price, $1.50 net. 

Mary Astell. By Florence M. Smith, Ph.D. Pp. ix + 193. Price, 
$1.50 net. 

St. Jean de Crevecoeur. By Julia Post Mitchell, Ph.D. Pp. 
xvii + 362. Price, $1.50 net. 

American Literature in Spain. By John DeLancey Ferguson, Ph.D. 
Pp. viii + 267. Price, $1.50 net. 

The Rhythm of Prose. By William Morrison Patterson, Ph.D. 
Pp. xxiii+193. Price, $1.50 net. 

English Domestic Relations, 1487 - 1653 . By Chilton Latham 
Powell, Ph.D. Pp. xii+274. Frontispiece. Price, $1.50 net. 

The Mystic Vision in the Grail Legend and in the Divine Comedy. 
By Lizette Andrews Fisher, Ph.D. Pp. xi +148. Illustrated. 
Price, $1.50 net. 

LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents 
30-32 West 27th Street New York 








